THE  UNIVERSITY 


OF  ILLINOIS 
LIBRARY 

Z.  9 


CENTRAL  CIRCULATION  BOOKSTACKS 


The  person  charging  this  material  is  re¬ 
sponsible  for  its  renewal  or  its  return  to 
the  library  from  which  it  was  borrowed 
on  or  before  the  Latest  Date  stamped 
below.  You  may  be  charged  a  minimum 
fee  of  $75.00  for  each  lost  book. 

Theft,  mutilation,  and  underlining  of  books  are  reasons 
for  disciplinary  action  and  may  result  In  dismissal  from 
the  University. 

TO  RENEW  CALL  TELEPHONE  CENTER,  333-8400 
UNIVERSITY  OF  ILLINOIS  LIBRARY  AT  URBANA-CHAMPAIGN 


JUL  2  0  1995 


When  renewing  by  phone,  write  new  due  date  below 


previous  due  date. 


L162 


OUR  MODERN  DEBT  TO 

ISRAEL 


i 


BY 

EDWARD  CHAUNCEY  BALDWIN,  Ph.D. 

Assistant  Professor  of  English  Literature 
at  the  University  of  Illinois 


BOSTON 

SHERMAN,  FRENCH  #  COMPANY 

1913 


Copyright,  1913 
Sherman,  French  &  Company 


01% 

CL  CK^si  i  X— 


And  throned  on  her  hills  sits  Jerusalem  yet, 

But  with  dust  on  her  forehead,  and  chains  on  her  feet; 
For  the  crown  of  her  pride  to  the  mocker  hath  gone, 
And  the  holy  Shechinah  is  dark  where  it  shone. 


Oh,  the  outward  hath  gone!  but  in  glory  and  power, 
The  spirit  surviveth  the  things  of  an  hour; 
Unchanged,  undecaying,  its  Pentecost  flame 
On  the  heart’s  secret  altar  is  burning  the  same ! 

— Whittier,  “Palestine.” 


<i  Jr:afc:  *  /  «. »  > 


PREFACE 


That  the  world  is  at  last  awaking  to  a  sense  of 
its  obligation  to  Israel  and  to  Israelitish  thfought 
there  can  be  no  question.  The  evidence  of  such 
an  awakening  is  found  in  the  amazing  output 
during  the  last  decade  of  books  dealing  with  the 
literature  of  Israel. 

Yet  among  all  these  books,  none,  so  far  as  the 
author  is  aware,  has  attempted  to  show  what  our 
modern  debt  is  to  the  three  classes  that  together 
molded  and  guided  the  thought  of  Israel  —  the 
prophets,  the  priests,  and  the  sages.  Who  these 
men  were,  and  what  they  did  for  Israel,  and, 
through  Israel,  for  the  world  at  large  is  still  very 
Vaguely  understood  by  the  general  reader. 

To  supply  this  lack  of  exact  knowledge  this 
little  book  is  written.  It  is  not  intended  for  the 
specialist,  but  for  the  layman.  Nor  does  it  pre¬ 
tend  to  be  the  result  of  scholarly  research.  The 
material  of  which  it  is  composed  is  accessible  to 
all  who  have  the  time  and  patience  to  collect  it. 
The  book  aims  simply  to  present  briefly  the  re¬ 
sults  of  modern  scholarship  so  far  as  this  schol¬ 
arship  reveals  the  extent  of  our  modern  obliga¬ 
tion  to  ancient  Israel.  The  author’s  acknowl¬ 
edgments  are  due  to  the  editors  of  The  Biblical 
World  and  the  B’nai  B’rith  News  for  their  per- 


PREFACE 


mission  to  make  use  of  certain  material  which  has 
previously  appeared  in  those  journals. 

Should  the  book  help  to  clarify  some  hazy  no¬ 
tions,  and,  incidentally,  to  substitute  for  grudg¬ 
ing  tolerance  of  a  maligned  race,  a  generous  re¬ 
spect,  the  purpose  of  the  author  will  have  been 
achieved. 

Urbana,  Illinois, 

September  1,  1913. 


CONTENTS 


PAGE 

I  THE  LITERATURE  OF  ISRAEL  .  .  .  1 

The  rediscovery  of  the  Old  Testa¬ 
ment.  Two  reasons  for  its  previous 
neglect  —  men’s  discontent  with  the 
textual  study  of  it,  and  the  difficulty  of 
understanding  it.  Results  of  the  ap¬ 
plication  of  the  methods  of  modern 
scholarship  —  a  revitalization  of  the 
Old  Testament,  and  an  awaking  of  the 
modern  world  to  a  fuller  recognition  of 
its  obligation  to  Israel.  Incidental  dis¬ 
coveries  made  by  modern  scholars  — 
that  the  Old  Testament  is  the  literature, 
viz.  the  record  of  the  life,  of  a  uniquely 
gifted  race.  Peculiarities  of  Hebrew 
literature  —  its  variety  and  its  unity. 

The  progress  of  its  formal  development. 

Early  poetry.  Hebrew  literature  the 
result  of  the  inspired  thinking  of  three 
groups  of  leaders  —  the  prophets,  the 
priests  and  the  sages 

II  THE  PROPHETS . 18 

The  nature  of  the  prophetic  function 
as  understood  by  the  Hebrews  them¬ 
selves.  The  prophets,  spokesmen  or  in¬ 
terpreters  for  God.  Their  predictions 
few  and  always  conditional.  Histor¬ 
ical  development  of  prophecy.  “  Sons 
of  the  prophets.”  Prophets  an  inde- 


PAGE 


pendent  order  —  their  radicalism  and 
their  idealism.  Their  resultant  social 
position.  Their  dress  and  way  of  life. 
Method  of  delivering  their  message  — 
the  oral  and  the  written  form.  Writ¬ 
ten  prophecy  dramatic.  Examples  of 
prophetic  dialogue.  Three  fundamen¬ 
tal  propositions  of  Hebrew  prophecy. 
Amos’s  emphasis  upon  righteousness. 
Hosea  and  mercy.  Isaiah’s  philoso¬ 
phy  of  history  and  his  insistence  upon 
humility.  Micah’s  summary  of  the 
teaching  of  the  preceding  prophets. 
His  formula  for  right  living.  Zephan- 
iah  on  national  sin  and  retribution. 
Nahum’s  view  of  tyranny.  Habak- 
kuk’s  message — “The  just  shall  live 
by  faith.”  Jeremiah’s  tragic  life  and 
the  outcome  —  his  belief  that  religion 
is  an  individual,  not  a  national,  matter. 
The  Exile  —  its  influence,  social  and 
economic,  and  upon  the  intellectual  and 
emotional  life  of  the  Jewish  race.  Eze¬ 
kiel’s  more  spiritualized  conception  of 
Jehovah.  His  vision  of  religious  fel¬ 
lowship.  The  first  Utopia.  A  com¬ 
parison  with  Plato’s.  The  second  Isai¬ 
ah’s  answer  to  the  question.  What  is 
Israel’s  vocation?  Zechariah’s  visions. 
Malachi’s  recognition  of  the  value  of 
heathen  worship.  Jonah’s  protest 
against  intolerance. 

Ill  THE  INFLUENCE  OF  THE  PROPHETS 

UPON  MODERN  THOUGHT  .  .  .  . 

The  prophetic  hope  of  a  kingdom  of 
God  on  earth.  The  prophetic  ideal  a 
social  one,  akin  to  that  of  those  who  to- 


87 


",  PAGE 

day  are  working  for  a  better  social 
order. 

IV  THE  PRIESTS . 95 

The  priests  and  the  prophets  rad¬ 
ically  opposed.  Social  position  of  the 
priests.  Their  dress.  The  priestly  func¬ 
tion.  Their  message  delivered  partly 
through  symbolic  acts  connected  with 
the  sacrifice.  Meaning  of  sacrifice  — 
communion  preceded  by  atonement. 

The  hortatory  message  of  the  priests, 
delivered  through  the  law.  Develop¬ 
ment  of  Hebrew  law.  Israel’s  early 
codes  —  their  uniqueness.  Fundamen¬ 
tal  ideas  embodied  in  them.  Deuter¬ 
onomy  —  law  written  under  prophetic 
influence.  The  levitical  code,  a  man¬ 
ual  of  religious  customs  and  practices. 

The  “  holiness  code  ”  as  an  expression 
of  Jewish  longing  for  social  justice.  Its 
provisions,  contrasted  with  those  of  Ro¬ 
man  law,  for  the  humane  treatment  of 
slaves,  and  for  the  welfare  of  the  poor. 
Effect  of  the  growing  supremacy  of  the 
priests. 

V  THE  DEBT  OF  ISRAEL  AND  THE  WORLD 

TO  HEBREW  LAW . 134 

Effect  of  Hebrew  law  upon  the  racial 
consciousness  of  Israel.  Christendom’s 
debt  to  the  priests  —  institutionally 
e.  g.  Sabbath  observance,  Easter,  the 
eucharist,  baptism.  Not  less  important 
obligations  to  the  priests,  certain  con¬ 
ceptions  of  God  and  of  what  He  re¬ 
quires  of  men.  Holiness  as  an  attribute 


PAGE 


of  God,  and  a  virtue  to  be  sought  hy¬ 
men  through  the  keeping  of  the  law. 

VI  THE  SAGES . 152 

Hebrew  estimate  of  the  religious 
value  of  the  three  groups  into  which 
they  divided  their  literature.  The  place 
of  “  The  Writings,”  the  work  of  the 
sages  in  the  regard  of  the  Hebrew  peo¬ 
ple.  The  Sages,  unlike  the  prophets, 
concerned  chiefly  with  the  individual, 
with  the  upbuilding  of  personal  charac¬ 
ter,  and  the  promotion  of  individual 
righteousness.  The  Sages  Israel’s  moral 
philosophers.  Their  position  as  leaders 
of  Hebrew  thought.  Their  aim  and 
function.  Their  method  of  work.  Mean¬ 
ing  of  wisdom.  Its  inclusiveness.  Em¬ 
phasis  upon  conduct.  Cosmopolitanism. 
Evidence  of  foreign  influence  upon  it. 

Its  uniqueness.  Beginning  and  end 
of  wisdom  —  humility  and  reverence. 

Forms  of  wisdom.  The  proverb,  the 
sages’  use  of  the  descriptive  method. 

VII  OUR  MODERN  DEBT  TO  THE  SAGES  .  177 

This  obligation  mostly  to  be  looked 
for  in  our  modern  ideals  of  character. 
Hebrew,  compared  with  other  ideals  of 
the  ancient  world.  Other  ethical  ideas 
which  the  modern  world  owes  to  the 
sages  —  the  seven  deadly  sins,  and  the 
seven  cardinal  virtues.  The  Epistle  of 
James  as  a  connecting  link  between  the 
wisdom  of  the  Old  and  the  New  Testa¬ 
ment. 


VIII  THE  MESSAGE  OF  ISRAEL  TO  THE  MOD 
ERN  WORLD . . 

Israel’s  message,  the  answer  to  three 
questions,  and  given  through  three 
classes  of  leaders  of  Hebrew  thought. 
These  leaders  unlike  in  their  methods, 
and  divergent  in  their  aims.  Their  dis¬ 
agreement  only  apparent.  The  impor¬ 
tance  of  our  modern  debt  to  them.  Our 
modern  social  ideals  due  to  a  belated 
recognition  of  our  obligation  to  them. 
How  these  ideals  find  expression.  Prob¬ 
able  results  of  these  ideals  becoming 
dominant  forces  in  the  lives  of  common 
men  —  a  new  zeal  for  righteousness, 
world  peace,  a  better  social  order. 


PAGE 

200 


. 


CHAPTER  I 


THE  LITERATURE  OF  ISRAEL 

We  of  the  present  generation  are  peculiarly 
fortunate  in  that  we  have  been  privileged  to  live 
in  parts  of  two  centuries.  Having  seen  the  close 
of  one  century  and  the  opening  years  of  another, 
we  can  look,  Janus-wise,  both  forward  and  back¬ 
ward  —  forward  with  confident  hope  toward  the 
years  that  are  to  be,  and  backward  with  some 
justness  of  appreciation  upon  the  century  just 
closed.  Even  at  this  distance,  we  can  with  some 
certainty  decide  what  was  the  contribution  of  the 
nineteenth  century  to  the  progress  of  the  race. 
Yet,  when  we  ask  what  was  the  great  accomplish¬ 
ment  of  that  century,  we  get  as  many  answers  as 
there  are  interests  dear  to  men’s  hearts.  The 
business  man  will  tell  us  that  the  great  achieve¬ 
ment  of  the  nineteenth  century  was  the  commer¬ 
cial  development  of  the  age  —  the  substitution  of 
the  principle  of  combination  for  the  old  principle 
of  competition,  and  the  supplanting  of  the  old 
idea  of  rivalry  by  the  new  idea  of  cooperation. 
And  perhaps  we  should  accept  his  statement  as 
true,,  did  not  further  inquiries  unsettle  our  con¬ 
viction.  The  educator  will  tell  us  that  the  most 

1 


2  OUR  MODERN  DEBT  TO  ISRAEL 


splendid  work  of  the  century  was  the  growth  of 
popular  education,  which  has  resulted  in  making 
illiteracy  comparatively  rare.  The  scientist  will 
tell  us  that  the  highest  attainment  of  the  century 
was  scientific,  and  will  remind  us  that  science  has 
indeed  within  the  last  fifty  years  opened  before 
us  a  new  heaven  and  a  new  earth.  With  equal 
confidence,  the  politician  will  assure  us  that  the 
glory  of  the  nineteenth  century  was  the  develop¬ 
ment  of  popular  liberty,  and  by  way  of  confirma¬ 
tion  will  point  to  the  indisputable  fact  that  there 
is  more  freedom  in  the  world  to-day  than  ever  be¬ 
fore  in  human  history.  Yet  they  would  all  be 
wrong.  The  crowning  glory  of  the  nineteenth 
century  was  not  the  founding  of  the  trusts,  nor 
the  enabling  of  the  man  in  the  street  to  read  and 
write,  nor  the  discovery  of  radium,  nor  even  the 
establishment  upon  a  firm  basis  of  the  great  mod¬ 
ern  republics,  but  the  rediscovery  of  the  Old  Tes¬ 
tament. 

44  Rediscovery,”  one  may  object,  44 1  was  not 
aware  that  the  Old  Testament  had  ever  been  lost.” 
Yet  the  word  is  an  appropriate  one,  for  there 
was  a  time  within  the  memory  of  men  now  living 
when  the  Old  Testament  seemed  in  danger  of  be¬ 
coming  a  neglected,  if  not  a  forgotten,  book. 
For  this  neglect  and  oblivion  there  were  two  rea¬ 
sons.  Men  were  tired  of  the  old  textual  study, 
and  they  found  the  Old  Testament  hard  to  under¬ 
stand. 

For  their  discontent  with  the  old  textual  study 


THE  LITERATURE  OF  ISRAEL  3 


there  was  abundant  justification.  It  led  those 
who  followed  it  into  the  strangest  absurdities. 
Indeed  it  often  resulted  in  what  we  might  call  bib- 
liomancy  —  the  treatment,  that  is,  of  the  text  as 
if  it  were  a  kind  of  Delphic  oracle.  For  exam¬ 
ple,  when  John  Wesley  had  to  decide  whether  he 
would  go  down  to  Ipswich  to  preach,  he  stuck 
a  pin  between  the  leaves  of  his  Bible  and  read 
the  first  text  that  caught  his  eye.  If  it  hap¬ 
pened  to  be  44  So  he  (Jonah)  paid  the  fare  thereof 
and  went  down,”  Wesley  at  once  paid  his  fare, 
and  went.  If  it  was  44  Let  him  that  is  on  the 
house-top  not  go  down,”  Wesley,  with  equal 
promptness,  decided  not  to  go.  If  he  found  noth¬ 
ing  so  pertinent  to  his  perplexity  as  either  of 
these  passages,  he  twisted  what  he  did  find  into 
some  pertinency  by  a  mystical  or  symbolical  in¬ 
terpretation;  or  else  he  tried  again.  But  it  is 
not  necessary  to  go  so  far  back  as  to  the  time  of 
Wesley  to  find  illustrations  of  the  absurdities  into 
which  men  were  led  by  the  textual  method  of 
study.  A  few  years  ago,  a  judge  of  the  supreme 
court  of  the  state  of  New  York  handed  down  a 
decision  in  which  he  said,  “We  have  the  highest 
possible  authority  for  saying  4  Skin  for  skin,  yea, 
all  that  a  man  hath  will  he  give  for  his  life.’  ” 
The  next  day,  the  New  York  Herald ,  in  an  ex¬ 
ultant,  and,  as  it  seemed  to  some  devout  souls,  al¬ 
most  blasphemous  editorial,  announced  that  the 
passage  quoted  had  been  looked  up,  and  that  it 
was  the  devil  who  said  it.  44  Now,”  said  the 


4  OUR  MODERN  DEBT  TO  ISRAEL 


writer,  “  we  know  who  is  regarded  by  our  supreme 
court  judges  as  the  highest  judicial  authority  in 
the  Empire  State.”  1 

An  even  more  adequate  reason  for  the  former 
neglect  of  the  Old  Testament  is  found  in  the  diffi¬ 
culty  of  understanding  it.  In  the  first  place 
more  than  two  thirds  of  it  is  poetry;  and  for  the 
intelligent  reading  of  poetry  a  certain  amount  of 
training  seems  to  be  required  to  develop  the  ar¬ 
tistic  appreciation  necessary  for  the  enjoyment, 
and  even  for  the  understanding,  of  a  literary 
genus  devoted,  not  so  much  to  the  communication 
of  ideas,  as  to  the  expression  of  feelings.  Even 
the  fact  that  the  Old  Testament  is  largely  poetry 
might  not  have  handicapped  the  student  hope¬ 
lessly,  had  he  'known  that  much  of  it  was  poetry. 
But,  as  Professor  Moulton  has  pointed  out,2  the 
Bible  is  the  worst  printed  book  in  the  world. 
“  No  other  monument  of  ancient  or  modern  liter¬ 
ature,”  says  Professor  Moulton,  “  suffers  the  fate 
of  being  put  before  us  in  a  form  that  makes  it 
impossible,  without  strong  effort  and  considera¬ 
ble  training,  to  take  in  elements  of  literary  struc¬ 
ture  which  in  all  other  books  are  conveyed  di¬ 
rectly  to  the  eye  in  a  manner  impossible  to  mis¬ 
take.”  Moreover,  the  difficulty  was  increased  by 
the  fact  that  the  Old  Testament  is  an  oriental 
book,  and  that  the  poetry  is  oriental  poetry.  Its 

1  The  illustration  is  borrowed  from  Abbott,  Life  and 
Literature  of  the  Ancient  Hebrews ,  p.  4. 

2  Literary  Study  of  the  Bible ,  p.  45. 


THE  LITERATURE  OF  ISRAEL  5 


versification  is  totally  different,  not  only  from 
that  of  English  poetry,  but  from  that  of  any  other 
language  with  which  the  student  is  likely  to  be 
conversant.  Its  constant  use  of  symbolism,  and 
its  warmth  and  fervor  still  further  differentiate 
it  from  western  poetry,  either  ancient  or  modern. 
Furthermore,  the  intelligent  appreciation  of  the 
Old  Testament  was  made  immensely  more  difficult 
by  its  being  an  ancient  oriental  book.  The  back¬ 
ground,  the  life  it  records,  is  that  of  the  ancient 
Semitic  world,  a  world  as  far  removed  from  ours 
as  the  East  is  from  the  West  —  and  farther  too, 
for  between  that  ancient  life  and  ours  there  in¬ 
tervene,  not  only  the  deep  cleavage  between  the 
Orient  and  the  Occident,  but  the  long  centuries 
that  separate  us  from  it. 

This  seemingly  impassable  gulf  the  Biblical 
scholarship  of  the  last  two  decades  has  done  much 
to  bridge.  The  modern  science  of  archaeology 
has  summoned  from  the  ancient  monuments  a  cloud 
of  witnesses  to  correct,  or  confirm  the  Biblical 
data.  Modern  philology  has,  through  the  dis¬ 
covery  of  ancient  documents,  thrown  a  flood  of 
light  upon  the  Biblical  text.  The  sciences  of  so¬ 
ciology  and  comparative  religion,  and  studies  in 
modern  oriental  life  have  all  contributed  their 
share  to  the  bridging  of  the  chasm. 2a 

The  result  of  the  substitution  of  the  literary 
and  historical  study  of  the  Old  Testament  for 

2a  See  Kent,  Origin  and  Permanent  Value  of  the  Old 
Testament,  pp.  10  ff. 


6  OUR  MODERN  DEBT  TO  ISRAEL 


the  older  textual  method  of  approach  has  been 
such  as  to  prove  wholly  unfounded  the  fear  shared 
by  many  lest  the  work  of  Biblical  scholars  would 
be  wholly  destructive.  On  the  contrary,  nothing 
essential  has  been  lost.  Though  some  of  the  mys¬ 
tery  has  disappeared,  that  lack  has  been  more 
than  compensated  by  what  has  been  gained.  To 
those  of  us  who  have  tried  it,  the  historical,  or 
literary,  method  of  study  means  the  rediscovery 
of  the  Hebrew  scriptures.  In  the  light  that  has 
been  thrown  upon  them  by  the  reverent  study  of 
modern  Biblical  scholars,  prophet,  priest  and 
sage  are  seen  no  longer  as  vague  and  shadowy  fig¬ 
ures  in  a  past  distant  and  unreal,  but  are  brought 
before  us,  as  Tissot,  the  French  painter,  brings 
them  before  us,  in  the  garb  and  in  the  surround¬ 
ings  in  which  they  lived.  And  their  words,  like 
their  personalities,  have  become  vital  —  alive 
with  messages  for  to-day,  messages  which  we  in 
this  age  cannot  afford  to  ignore.  Undoubtedly 
the  most  important  result  of  the  new  interest  in 
Hebrew  literature  has  been  the  awakening  of  the 
world  to  a  keener  realization  of  the  incalculable 
debt  that  it  owes  to  Israel  and  to  Israelitish 
thought.  We  have  at  last  come  to  understand 
that  modern  culture,  both  artistic  and  ethical,  goes 
back  to  Athens  and  to  Jerusalem,  but  that  English 
culture  owes  far  more  to  the  Hebrew  than  to  the 
Greek.3  By  clearly  revealing  the  contributions 
made  to  our  intellectual  and  moral  life  by  the 
s  See  Milman,  History  of  the  Jews,  Book  XXX.,  and  my 


THE  LITERATURE  OF  ISRAEL  7 


leaders  of  Israelitish  thought,  modem  scholars 
have  shown  that  we  are  what  we  are,  not  only 
morally  but  intellectually,  as  a  result  of  the  influ¬ 
ence  of  Moses,  David,  Solomon,  Isaiah,  of  Paul, 
and  of  Jesus,  rather  than  as  a  result  of  the  influ¬ 
ence  of  Homer,  Hesiod,  Sophocles,  Aristophanes, 
Plato,  and  Aristotle. 

In  the  process  of  making  clear  to  the  modern 
world  its  obligation  to  Israel,  scholars  have  made 
certain  discoveries,  which,  like  most  discoveries 
after  they  have  been  made,  seem  so  obvious  now  as 
to  be  self  evident.  They  have  found  that  the  He¬ 
brew  resembles  other  literatures  in  being  the  rec¬ 
ord  of  the  life  of  a  race.  As  English  literature 
is  the  record  of  the  thoughts  and  feelings  of  the 
greatest  Englishmen  for  the  last  five  hundred 
years,  so  the  Old  Testament  is  the  record  of  the 
thoughts  and  feelings  of  the  greatest  Hebrews 
through  nearly  a  thousand  years. 

But  while  Hebrew  resembles  other  literatures  in 
being  the  record  of  the  life  of  the  race  that  pro¬ 
duced  it,  it  differs  from  other  literatures  in  the  life 
it  records.  The  life  of  the  Hebrew  race  was  indeed 
the  life  of  a  peculiar  people.  They  called  them¬ 
selves  “  the  chosen  people,”  and  such  they  really 
were,  not  “  chosen  ”  in  a  different  sense,  but  for 
a  different  purpose  from  the  other  great  nations 

article,  “  The  Hebrew  and  the  Greek  Ideas  of  Life,”  in  The 
Biblical  World ,  Nov.,  1910. 

See,  also,  J.  R.  Green,  A  Short  History  of  the  English 
People ,  Chap.  VIII.,  Sec.  I. 


8  OUR  MODERN  DEBT  TO  ISRAEL 


of  antiquity.  God  chose  the  Greeks  to  teach  the 
world  a  knowledge  of  beauty,  and  endowed  them 
with  a  feeling  for  proportion,  and  with  a  love  of 
symmetry,  in  short,  with  a  highly  developed  ar¬ 
tistic  sense  that  fitted  them  to  become  the  apos¬ 
tles  of  beauty  for  all  humanity.  Similarly,  God 
chose  the  Romans  to  teach  the  world  the  rudiments 
of  the  science  of  government;  and  to  that  end 
gave  to  the  Roman  people  a  genius  for  law  and 
administration.  Some  of  us  like  to  think  that 
God  has  chosen  the  Anglo-Saxon  race  to  teach 
the  world  self-government,  and  that  our  race  has 
been  for  that  very  purpose  uniquely  gifted  with 
a  genius  for  governing  itself.  Be  that  as  it  may, 
the  calling  and  endowment  of  the  Hebrew  race 
was  in  no  sense  more  miraculous  than  that  of  the 
Greek  or  the  Roman.  It  differed  only  in  the  mis¬ 
sion  for  which  the  race  was  chosen.  God  chose 
the  Hebrew  race  to  teach  the  world  a  knowledge 
of  religion,  and  to  that  end  bestowed  upon  the 
race  a  genius  for  religion,  an  inherent  faculty, 
that  is,  for  recognizing,  understanding,  and  ex¬ 
pressing  “  the  life  of  God  in  the  soul  of  man.” 

The  possession  of  this  unique  endowment  con¬ 
stituted  their  sole  claim  to  recognition  as  one  of 
the  great  nations  of  antiquity.  Nothing  better 
illustrates  the  truth  that  God  seems  often  to 
choose  the  weak  things  of  the  earth  to  confound 
the  mighty,  and  the  things  that  are  not  to  bring 
to  naught  the  things  that  are  than  the  history 
of  the  Hebrews.  Unlike  their  neighbors,  the  As- 


THE  LITERATURE  OF  ISRAEL  9 


Syrians,  they  were  not  a  learned  people.  The 
Assyrians  gave  to  the  world  the  beginnings  of 
modern  science.  Our  knowledge  of  astronomy, 
for  example,  had  its  beginnings  in  Assyria,  whose 
astrologers  are  said  to  have  determined  within 
two  seconds  the  exact  length  of  the  solar  year, 
and  not  to  have  been  far  wrong  in  their  computa¬ 
tion  of  the  distances  of  the  sun,  moon  and  plan¬ 
ets  from  the  earth.  Nor  were  the  Hebrews  an 
artistic  people,  like  their  neighbors  on  the  south, 
the  Egyptians.  To  the  latter  the  modern  world 
owes  the  beginnings  of  art,  for  the  arts  of  sculp¬ 
ture  and  architecture  flourished  in  Egypt  more 
than  a  thousand  years  before  the  Parthenon  or 
the  Pantheon  were  built.  The  Doric  column  and 
the  Roman  arch  were  neither  Greek  nor  Roman  in 
origin,  but  Egyptian.  The  Hebrews,  on  the 
other  hand,  carved  no  statues ;  they  painted  no 
pictures ;  even  their  architecture  was  not  their 
own,  but  was  borrowed  from  the  Phoenicians.  The 
first  Temple  was  built,  not  by  Hebrew,  but  by 
Phoenician  architects.  Unlike  the  Phoenicians, 
they  were  not  a  commercial  people.  The  commer¬ 
cial  instincts  of  the  modern  Jew  are  not  an  in¬ 
herent  racial  characteristic,  but  have  been  ac¬ 
quired.  The  Phoenicians  were  the  great  traders 
of  antiquity.  The  international  trade  of  the  an¬ 
cient  world  was  practically  all  in  the  hands  of 
Phoenician  merchants,  and  was  carried  on  by 
Phoenician  ships.  These  ships  sailed  even  to 
what  were  then  literally  the  ends  of  the  earth,  to 


10  OUR  MODERN  DEBT  TO  ISRAEL 


Tartessus  in  Spain,  whence  they  were  called 
66  ships  of  Tarshish,”  a  phrase  that  seems  to  have 
been  used  much  as  the  term  44  Cunarder  ”  was  used 
a  generation  ago,  or  as  44  Dreadnaught  ”  is  em¬ 
ployed  to-day,  as  a  generic  term  to  mean  a  great 
ship.  Though  the  44  ships  of  Tarshish  ”  fur¬ 
nished  many  a  beautiful  symbol  to  the  poets  of 
Israel,  the  Hebrews  were  not  a  maritime  people. 
They  had  no  foreign  commerce  worth  mentioning. 
What  little  foreign  trade  they  had  was  carried 
on  through  the  Phoenicians. 

Even  geographically  the  Hebrews  were  seem¬ 
ingly  least  important  of  the  great  nations  of  an¬ 
tiquity.  We  seldom  stop  to  think  how  very  small 
the  little  pear-shaped  country  of  Palestine  (the 
44  West-land  ”)  really  was.  It  was  only  one  hun¬ 
dred  and  forty  miles  from  Dan  to  Beersheba,  and 
only  forty  from  the  Jordan  to  the  sea.  A  line 
drawn  from  Chicago  west  to  Aurora,  south  to  De¬ 
catur,  east  to  the  Indiana  border,  and  north 
again  to  Chicago  would  enclose  it  in  an  area  much 
less  than  a  quarter  of  the  state  of  Illinois. 

Yet,  in  spite  of  their  being  seemingly  the 
weakest  of  all  the  great  nations  of  antiquity,  the 
debt  of  the  modern  world  to  them  is  immeasurably 
greater  than  that  to  the  Assyrians,  the  Egyptians, 
and  the  Phoenicians  combined ;  and  it  is  so  because 
their  genius,  though  neither  scientific  nor  artistic, 
nor  commercial,  was  ethical  and  religious. 

The  religious  genius  of  the  race  found  expres¬ 
sion  in  their  literature  —  the  so-called  Old  Tes- 


THE  LITERATURE  OF  ISRAEL  11 


tament.  Regarding  this  literature,  also,  modern 
scholars  have  made  certain  discoveries.  They 
have  found  that  the  Old  Testament  is  not  a  book, 
nor  a  part  of  a  book,  but  a  library  —  that  it  is 
really  what  Saint  Jerome  long  ago  called  the 
Bible,  “  a  divine  library,”  that  it  consists  of 
thirty-six  books  bound  together  into  one  volume. 
They  found  that  these  thirty-six  books  were  a 
collection  of  varied  literary  forms,  written  by 
many  different  authors,  at  periods  of  time,  some 
of  them,  widely  separate,  and  for  widely  differing 
sets  of  readers.  Probably  the  most  striking 
characteristic  of  these  books  is  their  variety. 
The  contents  of  the  Old  Testament  are  as  varied 
as  if  one  should  bind  together  into  one  volume 
John  Knox’s  History  of  the  Reformation ,  Horace 
Bushnell’s  Sermons ,  Bacon’s  Essays ,  Cowper’s 
Letters ,  Shakespeare’s  Hamlet ,  Bunyan’s  Pil¬ 
grim’s  Progress ,  and  a  hymn  book.  Every  form 
of  literary  interest  is  represented  in  it. 

Yet  the  Old  Testament  is  far  more  than  a 
splendid  miscellany.  With  all  its  variety,  it  pos¬ 
sesses  a  unity  obvious  and  unmistakable.  The 
whole  collection  is  unified  by  the  fact  of  its  being 
a  chronicle  of  the  religious  development  of  the 
Hebrew  people.  It  is  a  record  of  a  gradually 
unfolding  revelation,  to  a  people  divinely  gifted 
spiritually,  of  God’s  dealings  with  humanity.  The 
Old  Testament,  then,  is  characterized  by  variety 
and  unity,  for  it  is  a  collection  of  books  of  widely 
differing  literary  forms,  brought  together  into 


12  OUR  MODERN  DEBT  TO  ISRAEL 


one  volume  which  is  unified  by  the  historical 
development  that  it  discloses,  and  because  of  the 
growth  of  spiritual  consciousness  that  it  reveals. 

Though  differentiated  from  other  literatures  by 
its  unity,  Hebrew  literature,  nevertheless,  re¬ 
sembles  them  in  the  progress  of  its  formal 
development.  The  order  of  the  books  in  our  Old 
Testament  is  entirely  misleading,  for  Hebrew  lit¬ 
erature  did  not  begin  with  historical  prose.  Like 
the  literatures  of  other  peoples,  it  began  with  lyric 
poetry.  Of  this  early  poetry  but  little  has  sur¬ 
vived,  and  that  little  is  scattered  through  the 
historical  books.  In  writing  the  histories,  which 
were  for  the  most  part  compilations  of  pre-existent 
material,  the  historians  borrowed  freely  from  cer¬ 
tain  collections  of  this  early  poetry.  Of  these 
old  anthologies  the  names  of  two  are  mentioned 
as  the  sources  of  some  of  the  songs  embodied  in 
the  historical  books.  These  are  the  Book  of  the 
Wars  of  Jehovah4  and  the  Book  of  Jashar.5 
From  the  excerpts,  it  appears  that  these  were  col¬ 
lections  of  national  songs  celebrating  the  deeds  of 
Israel’s  heroes.  From  them,  or  from  other  sim¬ 
ilar  anthologies,  is  quoted,  also,  the  Song  of 
Lamech,  sometimes  called  the  “  Song  of  the 
Sword,”  which  is  probably  one  of  the  oldest  frag¬ 
ments  extant  of  primitive  Hebrew  lyric  poetry. 
It  is'  found  in  the  fourth  chapter  of  Genesis,  and 
consists  of  only  six  verses. 

4  Num.  21:14  if.  sJosh.  10:13  if.  2  Sam.  1:18. 


THE  LITERATURE  OF  ISRAEL  IS 


Adah  and  Zilla,  hear  my  voice; 

Ye  wives  of  Lamech,  hearken  unto  my  speech: 
For  I  have  slain  a  man  for  wounding  me, 

And  a  young  man  for  bruising  me: 

If  Cain  shall  be  avenged  seven  fold, 

Truly  Lamech  seventy  and  seven-fold. 

The  primitive  savagery  of  this  little  song  of 
revenge  is  itself  a  proof  of  its  antiquity.  Yet, 
simple  and  primitive  as  it  is,  it  illustrates  as  well 
as  a  more  elaborate  example  would,  the  essential 
characteristics  of  Hebrew  poetry. 

Hebrew  versification  is  not,  like  Greek  and 
Roman  versification,  based  on  quantity,  or  the 
time  it  takes  to  pronounce  certain  syllables ;  nor, 
like  old  English  poetry,  upon  the  principle  of  a 
scheme  of  accents  and  alliteration ;  nor,  like  the 
poetry  of  modern  languages,  upon  a  basis  of  reg¬ 
ularly  recurring  accents ;  but  on  a  system  of 
parallelism,  each  verse  of  a  couplet  being  repeated 
in  a  slightly  different  form,  like  a  sound  and  its 
echo.  If  we  look  closely  at  the  little  poem  above 
quoted,  we  shall  see  that  the  statements  occur  in 
pairs,  the  second  of  each  pair  being  in  a  sense 
an  echo  of  the  preceding.  Thus,  the  assertions 
in  the  second  couplet 

I  have  slain  a  man  for  wounding  me 
And  a  young  man  for  bruising  me 

are  not  meant  to  imply  that  Lamech  had  killed 
two  men.  The  doubling  of  the  statement  is  merely 


14  OUR  MODERN  DEBT  TO  ISRAEL 


the  characteristic  poetic  parallelism.6  To  this 
parallelism  Watts-Dunton  has  applied  the  more 
suggestive  name  44  sense-rhythm,”  and  Dr.  Van 
Dyke,  the  term  44  thought-rhyme.”  Both  desig¬ 
nations  emphasize  the  fact  that  the  controlling 
rhythm  is  the  rhythm  of  meaning,  a  thought- 
measure,  rather  than  a  form-measure. 

Of  this  thought-rhyme  there  are  usually  dis¬ 
tinguished  four  varieties.  The  second  verse  may 
repeat  the  thought  of  the  first,7  as  when  Joshua 
sang, 

Sun,  stand  thou  still  upon  Gibeon, 

And  thou  Moon,  in  the  valley  of  Aijalon; 

where  we  have  synonymous  parallelism.  Or,  the 
thought  of  the  first  verse  is  emphasized  by  a  con¬ 
trasting  statement  in  the  second,  as  in  the  closing 
couplet  of  Deborah’s  song,8 

So  let  all  thine  enemies  perish,  O  Lord: 

But  let  them  that  love  thee  be  as  the  sun  when  he 
goeth  forth  in  his  might. 

This  is  called  antithetical  parallelism.  Again, 
the  second  verse  may  be  neither  a  repetition  nor 
a  contrast  to  the  first,  but  may  supplement  or 

6  Bishop  Lowth  first  gave  to  this  balancing  of  the  parts 
of  the  sentence,  one  against  another,  the  familiar  name  of 
parallelism.  Lowth,  Sacra  Poesi  Hebraeorum  Praelectiones, 
1753. 

7  The  Hebrew  stanza,  though  normally  consisting  of  two 
verses,  may  be,  and  often  is,  expanded  into  a  tercet,  or  even 
to  a  quatrain. 

8  Judges  5:31. 


THE  LITERATURE  OF  ISRAEL  15 


complete  it  by  stating  a  comparison,  a  reason, 
a  motive,  or  a  consequence.  Examples  are: 

As  cold  water  to  a  thirsty  soul, 

So  is  good  news  from  a  far  country. 

Ye  mountains  of  Gilboa!  Let  there  be  no  dew  nor 
rain  upon  you  .  .  . 

For  there  the  shield  of  the  mighty  was  vilely  cast 
away. 

Publish  it  not  in  the  streets  of  Ashkelon; 

Lest  the  daughters  of  the  Philistines  rejoice. 

Answer  not  a  fool  according  to  his  folly: 

Lest  thou  be  like  him. 

This  is  known  as  synthetic  parallelism.  A 
fourth  variety  is  the  climactic.  In  this  form  the 
first  verse  does  not  form  a  complete  sentence,  and 
the  second  repeats  certain  words  from  it  and 
finishes  the  statement. 

Give  unto  the  Lord,  O  ye  sons  of  the  mighty, 

Give  unto  the  Lord  glory  and  strength. 

The  ultimate  source  of  the  Hebrew  form  of 
versification 9  is  unknown.10  Probably  it  came 
direct  from  nature.  Life  itself  is  rhythmical, 
walking,  breathing,  the  action  of  the  heart ;  and,  in 

9  For  a  more  complete  exposition  of  the  characteristics  of 
Hebrew  versification,  see  Driver,  Introduction  to  the  Litera¬ 
ture  of  the  Old  Testament,  Chap.  VIII. 

10  Babylonian  and  Egyptian  poetry  share  with  it  the  com¬ 
mon  Semitic  parallelism. 


16  OUR  MODERN  DEBT  TO  ISRAEL 


external  nature,  such  common  phenomena  as  the 
ebb  and  flow  of  the  tide,  all  help  to  make  parallel¬ 
ism  seem  the  most  natural  form  in  which  emotional 
thought  could  find  expression.  Dean  Stanley  said 
of  it: 

44  4  The  rapid  strokes  as  of  alternate  wings,’ 
4  the  heaving  and  sinking  as  of  the  troubled  heart,’ 
which  have  been  beautifully  described  as  the  essence 
of  the  parallel  structure  of  Hebrew  verse,  are 
exactly  suited  for  the  endless  play  of  human  feel¬ 
ing,  and  for  the  understanding  of  every  age  and 
nation.” 

Because  it  was  suited  44  for  the  understanding  of 
every  age  and  nation,”  and  because  it  did  not 
depend  for  its  effect  upon  meter  and  rhyme,  which 
cannot  be  transferred  from  one  language  to 
another,  Hebrew  poetry  loses  comparatively  little 
in  translation.  Because  it  possesses  44  a  rhythm 
largely  independent  of  the  features,  prosodical  or 

other,  of  any  individual  language - a  rhythm 

free,  varied  and  indeterminate,  or  rather  deter¬ 
minate  only  by  what  has  been  called  4  the  energy 
of  the  spirit  which  sings  within  the  bosom  of  him 
who  speaks,’  and  therefore  adaptable  to  every 
emotion,  from  the  most  delicate  to  the  most 
energetic,”  11  it  was  suited,  as  no  other  poetry  could 
be,  to  be  rendered  almost  without  loss  in  English. 

The  story  of  the  development  of  Hebrew  litera- 

ii  “  The  Authorized  Version  and  its  Influence,”  by  Pro¬ 
fessor  A.  S.  Cook,  in  Vol.  IV.  of  the  Cambridge  History  of 
English  Literature. 


THE  LITERATURE  OF  ISRAEL  IT 


ture  through  lyric  and  ballad  and  prose  heroic 
legend,  and  connected  prose  historical  narrative 
to  the  prophetic  literature  of  the  eighth  century  — 
the  earliest  books  that  have  come  down  to  us  in 
their  original  form  —  is  too  long  a  story  to  be 
repeated  here.  The  reader  wrill  find  it  given  at 
length  in  many  popular  handbooks  now  readily 
accessible.12 

As  we  have  it,  in  its  completed  form,  the  litera-A- 
ture  of  Israel  (the  Old  Testament)  represents 
roughly  a  thousand  years  of  divinely  guided 
thought  of  the  three  classes  of  leaders  who  to¬ 
gether  guided  and  molded  the  thoughts  of  Israel. 
These  leaders  were  the  prophets,  the  priests, 
and  the  sages.  What  these  three  classes  who  pro¬ 
duced  the  literature  of  Israel  really  were;  what 
they  stood  for  in  the  life  of  the  nation ;  and,  finally, 
what  each  class  contributed  to  the  ethical  equip¬ 
ment  of  Israel,  and  through  Israel,  to  the  modern 
world  is  to  be  the  subject  of  our  consideration. 
We  may  naturally  begin  with  the  prophets. 

12  One  of  the  most  readable  accounts  of  the  development 
of  Hebrew  literature  is  to  be  found  in  Fowler’s  History  of 
the  Literature  of  Ancient  Israel  From  the  Earliest  Times 
to  135  B.  C.,  pp.  10-104. 


CHAPTER  II 


THE  PROPHETS 

In  view  of  the  importance  of  the  prophets, 
both  for  their  own  times,  and  for  any  study  of 
the  influence  of  Israel  upon  modern  thought,  it 
is  imperative  that  one  should  clearly  understand 
what  was  the  prophetic  function.  Exactly  who 
these  sixteen  men  were,  what  they  aspired  for 
and  did,  what  they  were  for  their  time  and  what 
they  still  are  for  ours,  what  portion  of  our  common 
stock  of  ethical  ideas  we  owe  to  them  —  these 
are  questions  about  which  the  average  man  has 
only  the  vaguest  ideas.  Without  having  thought 
much  about  it,  he  supposes  that  prophecy  was 
“  history  written  beforehand,”  1  and  that  the 
prophet’s  special  duty  and  significance  consisted 
in  foretelling  the  coming  of  Christ.  Such  a  sup¬ 
position,  it  seems  hardly  necessary  to  point  out, 
is  totally  unjust  both  to  the  character  and  to  the 
importance  of  Israelitish  prophecy.  Prediction 

i  Justin  Martyr’s  definition  of  the  word  prophet,  which 
represents  a  prevalent  misconception  that  has  persisted  even 
to  our  own  time,  is  found  in  the  first  Apologia  CXXXI., 
“  There  were  among  the  Jews  certain  men  who  were 
prophets  of  God,  through  whom  the  prophetic  spirit  pub¬ 
lished  beforehand  things  that  were  to  come  to  pass  ere  ever 
they  happened.” 


18 


THE  PROPHETS 


19 


was  indeed  a  part  of  the  prophetic  work,  but  it  was 
by  no  means  exclusively  the  prophetic  function. 

Prophecy  was  occupied  with  the  destinies  of 
the  kingdom  of  God  —  sometimes  even  the  far- 
distant  consummation  and  glory  of  the  kingdom. 
But,  though  the  prophet  looked  forward  rather 
.than  backward,  though  indeed  the  prophets  lived 
in  the  future  in  a  sense  that  the  priests  and  the 
sages  did  not,  we  must  not  restrict  prophecy  to 
the  foretelling  of  the  future.  The  prophets  were 
essentially  men  of  the  present. 

Their  mission  was  to  save  Israel  by  recalling 
the  nation  to  the  obligations  of  the  covenant. 
They  were  not  soothsayers.  Only  occasionally 
do  they  venture  predictions,  and  then  only  as  an 
expression  of  their  sublime  faith.  Moreover,  all 
their  predictions  were  conditional,  and  were  so 
understood  at  the  time  they  were  uttered.  Jonah, 
for  example,  first  refused  his  mission  to  Nineveh 
because  he  feared  that  his  prediction  of  the  coming 
destruction  of  the  city  would,  on  account  of  the 
people’s  repentance,  be  unfulfilled ;  that  is,  he 
knew  that  the  fulfillment  of  his  prophecy  depended 
upon  the  conduct  of  the  people  whose  destruction 
he  foretold.  Thus  it  has  happened  that  many  a 
dire  announcement  of  impending  doom  has  been 
unrealized,  and  that  the  fulfillment  of  many  a 
glorious  prediction  has  been  long  deferred,  because 
both  were  conditional,  and  because  conditions, 
upon  which  the  predictions  were  contingent, 
changed. 


20  OUR  MODERN  DEBT  TO  ISRAEL 


No  better  corrective  for  the  popular  miscon¬ 
ception  of  the  true  prophetic  function  can  be  found 
than  an  examination  of  the  etymology  of  the 
Hebrew  word  for  prophet,  for  by  this  means  we 
can  find  out  what  the  Hebrews  themselves  under¬ 
stood  by  it.  The  Hebraic  wrord  for  prophet  is 
closely  allied  to  an  Arabic  word  that  means  to 
proclaim  something,  or  to  carry  out  some  man¬ 
date.2  It  would  appear,  therefore,  that  the 
Hebrew  word  in  its  root  meaning  signified  the 
delivery  of  some  message,  and  that  the  prophet  was 
a  deputed  speaker.  That  such  actually  was  the 
fundamental  meaning  of  the  word  among  the 
Hebrews  appears  from  a  passage  in  Exodus,3 
where  we  are  told  that  Moses  hesitated  and  drew 
back  from  his  vocation  to  deliver  Israel,  saying, 
“  O  Lord,  I  am  not  a  man  of  words,  neither  here¬ 
tofore,  nor  since  thou  hast  spoken  unto  thy  ser¬ 
vant:  for  I  am  slow  of  speech,  and  of  a  slow 
tongue.”  And  the  Lord,  accordingly,  designated 
Aaron  as  Moses’  spokesman,  saying,  “  And  he  shall 
be  thy  prophet  unto  the  people:  and  it  shall  come 
to  pass  that  he  shall  be  to  thee  a  mouth,  and  thou 
shalt  be  to  him  as  God.”  So  it  appears  that 
Aaron  was  to  be  Moses’  prophet  in  the  same  sense 
that  Moses  was  to  be  God’s  prophet.  He  was  to 
be  his  spokesman  or  interpreter. 

2  Several  alternative  derivations  of  the  Hebrew  word  for 
prophet  are  discussed  by  L.  W.  Batten  in  The  Hebrew 
Prophet,  p.  344;  in  Hastings’s  Bible  Dictionary,  article 
“Prophet”;  and  in  Cornill’s  Prophets  of  Israel,  pp.  6  fF. 

3  Ex.  4:10  fF. 


THE  PROPHETS 


21 


Such  a  conception,  involving  the  idea  that  God 
revealed  his  will  to  certain  selected  individuals, 
who  thus  became  his  interpreters,  was  a  gradual 
growth ;  and  this  growth,  or  historical  develop¬ 
ment,  is  involved  in  considerable  obscurity.  It  is 
quite  probable  that  prophecy  is  an  outgrowth  of 
44  divination.”  Of  the  46  diviners  99  and  their 
methods  we  know  comparatively  little,  except 
that  they  were  men  who  sought  to  discover 
the  divine  will  by  external  means  —  arrows, 
rods,  and  the  sacred  lot.  Joseph,  we  are  told,  4 
was  a  diviner ;  and  Balaam  also  was  such  at 
least  by  reputed  calling.5  The  art  of  divination 
seems  to  have  been  borrowed  originally  from  the 
Canaanites,6  and  was  by  the  provisions  of  the 
Deuteronomic  code 7  expressly  forbidden  as  “  an 
abomination  unto  the  Lord.”  It  seems,  how¬ 
ever,  never  entirely  to  have  disappeared  in 
Israel ;  both  Isaiah  and  Micah 8  in  the  eighth 
century,  and  in  the  post-exilic  period,  Zech- 
ariah 9  referring  contemptuously  to  the  false 
prophets  as  diviners.  Succeeding  the  diviners, 
and  immediately  preceding  the  prophets  were  the 
44  seers,”  10  whose  function  was  to  disclose  to 
individuals  the  secrets  of  the  present  and  of  the 
immediate  future.  The  office  of  the  seer  was  some¬ 
what  similar  to  that  of  the  modern  clairvoyant. 

4  Gen.  44:15.  8  Is.  44:25;  Mic.  3:6. 

6  Num.  22:7,  18.  «  Zech.  10:2. 

6  I  Sam.  6:2.  io  I  Sam.  9:9. 

7Deut.  18:10-14. 


22  OUR  MODERN  DEBT  TO  ISRAEL 


To  him  men  went  to  66  inquire  of  the  Lord,”  as 
formerly  they  had  gone  to  the  priest  to  obtain  the 
sacred  oracle  by  means  of  the  sacred  lot,  the  “  Urim 
and  Thummim.”  For  such  services,  the  seer  was 
paid  a  fee ;  a  quarter  of  a  shekel  in  at  least  one 
instance  11  is  mentioned  as  the  amount  required. 
Samuel,  to  whom  this  fee  was  to  be  paid,  was  the 
first  to  represent  in  a  complete  degree  the  develop¬ 
ment  of  the  idea  of  “  prophet  ”  as  the  mouth-piece 
of  God.  It  is  noteworthy  that  the  Hebrews  them¬ 
selves  seem  to  have  regarded  him  as  the  first  of 
the  prophetic  line;  at  all  events,  the  author  of 
Hebrews  in  the  muster-roll  of  the  national  heroes 
mentions  “Samuel  and  the  prophets,”  12  as  if  he 
headed  the  list.  Moses,  to  be  sure,  is  frequently 
spoken  of  as  a  prophet,  but  in  such  a  way  as  to 
suggest  that  the  term  was  applied  to  him  in  a 
retrospective  sense.  There  is  nothing  to  indicate 
that  he  was  ever  called  a  prophet  in  his  own  day. 
Samuel  undoubtedly  represents  the  completion  of 
the  long  development  covering  many  centuries, 
the  stages  of  which  are  traceable  in  the  names  that 
were  successively  applied  to  the  man  supposed  to 
be  on  somewhat  intimate  terms  with  God. 

It  is  in  the  time  of  Samuel  that  we  first  hear  of 
communities  of  prophets.  They  seem  to  have  con¬ 
gregated  about  the  several  local  sanctuaries,  for 
the  places  mentioned  as  their  residences  were  local 
centers  of  Jehovah-worship.  Such  were  Ramah  in 


ii  I  Sam.  9:8. 


12  Heb.  11:32. 


THE  PROPHETS 


23 

Mount  Ephraim;  13  Bethel  in  the  same  vicinity;  14 
Gibeah  in  Benjamin;15  Jericho  on  the  Jordan  16 
and  Gilgal.17  The  number  of  these  groups  of 
prophets  at  this  particular  time  and  their  close 
association  with  the  worship  of  the  period  were 
resultant  upon  the  awakening  of  patriotism  caused 
by  the  rigors  of  Philistine  oppression.  This 
seems  to  have  been  more  severe  than  any  the  nation 
had  suffered  hitherto.  It  certainly  was  suffi¬ 
cient  to  call  forth  a  new  national  spirit;  and  in 
Israel  patriotism  and  religion  were,  if  not  synon¬ 
ymous,  at  least  correlative  terms.  Israel’s  enemies 
were  looked  upon  as  foes  of  Jehovah ;  and  only  by 
His  help  could  Israel  hope  to  throw  off  the  yoke 
of  the  oppressors.  The  oppression  of  the  nation 
by  a  foreign  enemy  was,  consequently,  the  signal 
for  the  appearance  of  a  more  devout  adherence  to 
the  Captain  of  the  Hosts  of  Israel,  and  of  a  more 
fervid  patriotism. 

The  patriotic  fervor  of  these  groups  of  prophets 
seems  not  to  have  been  altogether  according 
to  knowledge.  They  expressed  it  by  singing, 
dancing,  and  an  excitation  of  manner  analogous  to 
the  deportment  of  the  modern  oriental  dervish.18 
Like  all  emotional  excitement,  that  of  the  prophets 
was  highly  contagious.19  The  story  is  told  that 
when  Saul  in  pursuit  of  David  went  to  Naioth,  he 

is  I  Sam.  19:18.  17  II  Kings  4:38. 

14  II  Kings  2:3.  is  I  Sam.  10:5. 

is  I  Sam.  10:5,  10.  1®  I  Sam.  19:20-24. 

16  II  Kings  2:5. 


24  OUR  MODERN  DEBT  TO  ISRAEL 


caught  the  prophetic  spirit,  “  and  he  also  stripped 
off  his  clothes,  and  he  also  prophesied  before 
Samuel,  and  fell  down  naked  all  that  day 
and  all  that  night.  Wherefore  they  say,  is  Saul 
also  among  the  prophets  P  20  This  saying  has  been 
misinterpreted,  and  the  prevalent  opinion  of  the 
prophetic  ecstasy,  consequently,  misunderstood. 
They  did  not  mean  to  ask  why  so  worldly  a  man 
found  himself  in  so  exalted  company,  but  rather 
how  so  distinguished  a  person  could  feel  at  home 
in  such  questionable  society. 

Though  there  is  no  evidence  that  Samuel  origi¬ 
nated  these  prophetic  communities,  he  seems  to 
have  been  in  close  relation  with  them,  appearing 
at  the  head  of  one  of  them  in  the  passage  just 
referred  to.21  The  probability  is  that  he  saw  the 
value  of  the  religious  patriotism  of  the  prophets, 
and  that  he  allied  himself  with  them  as  a  means  of 
promoting  the  end  he  had  in  view,  the  establishment 
of  a  theocracy,  a  kingdom  of  God  on  earth. 

In  the  attempt  to  realize  this  dream  of  a  king¬ 
dom  of  God  on  earth  through  the  establishment  of 
the  monarchy  upon  a  firm  basis,  Samuel  and  his 
successors,  Elijah  and  Elisha,22  worked  in  close 
relation  with  the  reigning  king.  They  acted  as 
his  counsellors,  and  addressed  him  in  the  name  of 
God ;  through  him  directly  influencing  govern¬ 
mental  policies.  Later,  in  the  reign  of  kings  out 

20  I  Sam.  19 :24. 

21 1  Sam.  19:20. 

22  These  men  were  often  called  by  the  Hebrews  “  The 
former  prophets.” 


THE  PROPHETS 


25 


of  sympathy  with  the  theocratic  idea,  such  an  al¬ 
liance  became  impossible.  Hence  arose  the  sepa¬ 
ration  of  religion  and  politics,  and  the  complete 
independence  of  the  prophetic  order,  the  prophets 
taking  their  place  over  against  all  classes  as  the 
immediate  servants  of  Jehovah.  They  no  longer 
headed  political  movements,  nor  allied  themselves 
with  any  political  party  in  the  state.  Unlike  the 
priests,  who  were  the  staunch  supporters  of  the 
existing  order,  the  prophets  were  always  pro- 
testants.  Theirs  was  invariably  the  voice  of  pro¬ 
test  against  existing  conditions,  against  the  ten¬ 
dency  to  degrade  the  worship  of  Jehovah  into  a 
sensuous  ritualism,  and  against  the  mistaken  pol¬ 
icy  of  trying  to  strengthen  the  political  life  of  the 
nation  by  worldly  alliances  with  their  idolatrous 
neighbors. 

Their  attitude  of  insurgency  naturally  brought 
them  into  conflict  with  the  priests.  As  the  stead¬ 
fast  upholders  of  the  established  order  in  church 
and  state,  the  latter  looked,  with  the  distrust  that 
the  conservative  always  feels  for  the  radical,  upon 
the  idealism  of  the  prophets.  Their  general  atti¬ 
tude  is  perfectly  exemplified  in  the  position  taken 
by  Amaziah,  the  priest  of  the  sanctuary  at  Bethel 
on  the  occasion  of  the  preaching  of  Amos.  After 
having  complained  to  King  Jeroboam,  charging 
Amos  with  conspiring  to  incite  a  rebellion  against 
the  king’s  authority,  he  sarcastically  advises  the 
prophet  to  go  back  to  Judah  whence  he  had 
come,  saying,  “  O  thou  seer,  go,  flee  thee  away 


26  OUR  MODERN  DEBT  TO  ISRAEL 


into  the  land  of  Judah,  and  there  eat  bread,  and 
prophesy  there :  but  prophesy  not  again  any 
more  at  Bethel :  for  it  is  the  king’s  sanctuary,  and 
it  is  a  royal  house.”  23 

The  priests’  dislike  of  the  prophets  was  on  the 
whole  well  founded,  for  the  prophets  not  only  dis¬ 
paraged  the  priestly  office,  but  depreciated  the 
whole  ceremonial  system  with  which  the  priests 
were  identified.  Amos  decries  the  idea  that  the 
sacrificial  cult  was  of  ancient  origin :  66  Did  you 

bring  me  sacrifices  and  offerings  in  the  wilderness 
forty  years,  O  house  of  Israel?  ”  24  he  asks  iron¬ 
ically.  Even  more  denunciatory  of  the  priests  is 
Hosea.  Including  both  the  royal  house  and  their 
supporters,  the  priestly  hierarchy,  in  one  sweep¬ 
ing  arraignment,  he  cries  out,  “  Hear  this,  O  ye 
priests,  and  hearken  O  house  of  Israel,  and  give 
ear,  O  house  of  the  king,  for  unto  you  pertaineth 
the  judgment:  for  ye  have  been  a  snare  at  Miz- 
pah,  and  a  net  spread  upon  Tabor.”  25  He  even 
charges  the  priests  with  the  most  revolting 
crimes.26  In  contrast  to  the  polluted  sacrifices 
of  such  “  blind  mouths,”  God,  he  says,  desires 
“  mercy  and  not  sacrifice,  and  knowledge  of  God 
more  than  burnt  offerings.”  27 

Partly  owing  to  their  recalcitrant  attitude  to¬ 
ward  the  ruling  class,  the  social  position  of  the 
prophets  was  relatively  lower  than  that  of  the 

23  Amos  7:12,  13.  26  Hos.  6:9. 

24  Am.  5:25.  27  Hos.  6:6. 

25  Hos.  5:1. 


THE  PROPHETS 


27 


priests,  who  were  the  most  influential  class  in  the 
Hebrew  state.  Such  social  inferiority  was  re¬ 
flected  in  their  dress.  In  contrast  to  the  white 
robes  of  the  priests,  they  wore  a  somber-hued 
mantle  of  camel’s  hair.  This  became  a  symbol 
of  the  prophetic  office  in  much  the  same  way  as 
the  clerical  coat,  the  cassock  waistcoat,  and  white 
tie  of  the  modern  clergyman  are  badges  of  his  of¬ 
fice.  When  Elijah  was  commissioned  to  anoint 
Elisha  as  his  successor,  he  found  Elisha  plowing 
in  the  field,  and)  cast  upon  him  his  mantle.  28 
Saul  readily  recognized  Samuel  by  the  mantle, 
when,  at  his  request,  the  witch  of  Endor  summoned 
the  prophet  from  the  abode  of  the  dead.29  Simi¬ 
larly,  Ahaziah,  when  he  hears  that  the  person  met 
by  his  messengers  was  “  a  man  with  a  garment  of 
hair,  and  girt  with  a  girdle  of  leather  about  his 
loins,”  immediately  identified  him,  saying,  “  It  is 
Elijah,  the  Tishbite.”  The  leather  girdle  is  so 
frequently  referred  to  as  to  make  it  probable  that 
this,  too,  was  an  essential  part  of  the  prophet’s 
costume.30  There  was  also  a  distinguishing  mark 
upon  the  forehead  between  the  eyes,  probably  a 
scar  following  an  incision.  When  the  prophet 
went  to  meet  Ahab,  after  the  battle  with  the  Syr¬ 
ians,  he  disguised  himself  “  with  his  headband 
over  his  eyes,”  covering  the  characteristic  scar. 
As  soon  as  he  took  the  headband  away  from  his 

28  I  Kings  19:16  if. 

29  I  Sam.  28:13  ff. 

so  See  also  Jer.  14,  Matt.  3:4,  Mark  1:6. 


28  OUR  MODERN  DEBT  TO  ISRAEL 


eyes,  Ahab  “  discerned  him  that  he  was  of  the 
prophets.”  31 

Though  some  of  the  prophets  were  self-support¬ 
ing,  many  of  them  seem  to  have  lived  in  a  pre¬ 
carious  way  upon  the  free-will  offerings  of  the 
pious.  A  considerable  source  of  income  was  the 
fees  paid  by  those  who  came  to  consult  them.  Ap¬ 
parently  these  fees  were  not  fixed,  but  varied  with 
the  circumstances  of  the  giver,  somewhat  like  the 
perquisites  of  the  modern  clergyman  for  perform¬ 
ing  the  marriage  ceremony.  Though  the  rather 
modest  sum  of  a  quarter  of  a  shekel  (about  six¬ 
teen  cents)  is  once  mentioned  32  as  adequate,  the 
fees  paid  were  sometimes  very  large.  When  Ben- 
hadad,  king  of  Syria,  sent  Hazael  to  meet  Elisha 
to  ask  whether  the  king  should  recover  from  his 
illness,  we  are  told  that  Hazael  “  took  a  present 
with  him  even  of  every  good  thing  of  Damascus, 
forty  camels’  burden.”  33  In  course  of  time  the 
custom  of  accepting  fees  became  so  notorious  an 
abuse  that  the  greater  prophets  mention  it  more 
than  once  as  one  of  the  most  flagrant  evils  of  their 
time.  Side  by  side  with  Ezekiel’s  denunciation 
of  the  priests,  is  his  arraignment  of  the  mercenary 
prophets,  who  “  go  about  like  a  roaring  lion  rav¬ 
ening  the  prey :  they  have  devoured  souls ;  they 
take  treasure  and  precious  things ;  they  have  made 
her  widows  many  in  the  midst  thereof.”  34  The 
Second-Isaiah,  also,  protests  in  the  same  breath 

si  I  Kings  20:35-41.  33  11  Kings  8:7-9. 

32  I  Sam.  9:7,  8.  34  Ezek.  22:25. 


THE  PROPHETS 


29 


that  44  the  priests  teach  for  hire  and  the  prophets 
divine  for  money.” 

The  prophet’s  chief  business,  however,  was  not 
giving  advice,  either  gratuitously  or  for  a  fee,  but 
preaching.  All  the  prophets  were  orators,  and 
orators  who  spoke  extempore,  rather  than  essay¬ 
ists  ;  and  probably  all  the  prophecies  were  deliv¬ 
ered  orally  before  being  committed  to  writing.35 
Moreover,  it  is  certain  that  the  early  prophecies 
were  not  only  oral,  but  lyrical,  and  accompanied 
by  music.  The  company  of  prophets  that  Saul 
met  after  his  anointing  were  prophesying  to  the 
music  of  a  psaltery,  and  a  timbrel,  and  a  pipe, 
and  a  harp  played  by  minstrels  who  went  before 
them.36  Elisha,  it  will  be  remembered,  called  for 
a  minstrel  to  accompany  his  discourse  before  the 
three  kings.  44  And  it  came  to  pass,  when  the 
minstrel  played,  that  the  hand  of  Jehovah  came 
upon  him.”  37 

The  occasions  of  the  delivery  of  the  prophetic 
addresses  were  mainly  the  popular  gatherings  at 
feasts,  and  for  worship  at  the  favorite  shrines. 
Amos,  for  example,  spoke  at  Bethel;38  and  the 
language  of  the  indignant  chief  priest  implies  that 
Amos  was  out  of  order,  not  in  speaking  there,  but 

35  A  possible  exception  is  Ezekiel’s  prophecy;  but  even  in 
this  there  is  no  evidence  to  prove  that  any  part  of  the  book, 
unless  it  be  chapters  40-48,  was  written  before  being  de¬ 
livered. 

36  I  Sam.  10:5. 

37  II  Kings  3:15. 

38  Amos  7 :10. 


SO  OUR  MODERN  DEBT  TO  ISRAEL 


only  because  he  had  inveighed  against  the  king, 
who  was  regarded  as  the  proprietor  of  the  sanctu¬ 
ary.  Jeremiah  preached,  standing  “  in  the  gate 
of  the  Lord’s  house ; 39  and  later  when  he  was  not 
allowed  to  enter  the  “  house  of  the  Lord,”  he  com¬ 
missioned  Baruch  to  read  his  written  prophecy 
on  a  great  fast  day  before  the  Temple  at  Jerusa¬ 
lem.40 

In  their  preaching,  the  prophets  made  an  ex¬ 
tensive  use  of  at  least  one  of  the  methods  employed 
in  our  modern  elementary  schools.  They  taught 
by  object  lessons.  Hosea  gave  to  each  of  his 
three  children  names  that  reiterated  every  time 
they  were  pronounced  the  prophet’s  stern  menace 
of  overthrow  for  the  northern  kingdom.41  Isaiah 
wore  for  three  years  the  shameful  garb  of  a  slave 
to  impress  upon  his  contemporaries  his  grim  pre¬ 
diction  that  the  Egyptians,  in  whom  the  Hebrews 
trusted,  would  be  led  away  captive  by  Assyria.42 
Similarly  Jeremiah  wore  a  wooden  yoke,  symbolic 
of  the  yoke  of  Assyrian  servitude  borne  by  the  na¬ 
tions.43  Some  of  the  symbolic  prophecies  seem 
to  have  been  literary  illustrations  rather  than  to 
have  been  actually  performed.  It  is  difficult  to 
see,  for  example,  how  Jeremiah  could  have  fulfilled 
in  any  literal  way  the  command  to  lay  great  stones 
with  mortar  in  the  brick  pavement  66  which  is  at 
the  entry  of  Pharaoh’s  house  in  Tahpanhes.” 44 

42  is.  20:1-4. 

43  Jer.  .28:10,  13. 

44  Jer.  43:8,  9. 


39  Jer.  7:1. 

40  J er.  36 :9  ff . 

41  Hos.  1. 


THE  PROPHETS 


31 


Such  a  piece  of  seeming  vandalism  as  this  would 
certainly  have  been  bitterly  resented  by  the  Egyp¬ 
tians,  and  would  probably  have  cost  the  prophet 
his  life.  Scarcely  less  fatal  would  have  been  such 
a  test  of  endurance  as  that  described  in  the  fourth 
chapter  of  Ezekiel,  where  the  prophet  is  com¬ 
manded  to  lie  on  his  left  side  for  three  hundred 
and  ninety  days,  pointing  with  bared  arm  to  a 
portrayal  of  the  horrors  of  a  siege ;  and  having 
done  this,  to  lie  on  his  right  side  for  forty  days 
more,  in  a  similar  attitude,  prophesying  the  while 
against  the  house  of  Judah.45  The  fact  that 
these  symbolic  acts  were  not  in  all  cases  actually 
performed  did  not  lessen  their  value  as  illustra¬ 
tions  of  the  truths  the  prophets  were  trying  to  en¬ 
force,  even  though  their  appeal  was  through  the 
written  word. 

In  exchanging  the  written  for  the  oral  form, 
the  prophets  were  not  actuated  by  literary  ambi¬ 
tion.  They  were  not  trying  to  furnish  classics 
for  the  perusal  of  a  later  age.  The  written  was 
to  serve  the  same  purpose  as  the  spoken  word. 
In  both  his  speaking  and  his  writing,  the  prophet 
invariably  addressed,  not  posterity,  but  his  im¬ 
mediate  contemporaries,  speaking  chiefly  of  pres¬ 
ent  sin,  and  present  duty.  Moreover,  it  is  highly 
improbable  that  many  of  the  prophets  could  write, 
writing  in  ancient  Israel  being  a  highly  special¬ 
ized  profession,  followed  by  comparatively  few. 
Some  controlling  necessity  must  have  influenced 
45  Ezek.  4:1-8. 


32  OUR  MODERN  DEBT  TO  ISRAEL 


the  prophets  to  change  from  the  oral  to  the  writ¬ 
ten  form  of  appeal.  What  this  necessity  was  we 
know,  at  least  in  the  case  of  Jeremiah.  For  twen¬ 
ty-one  years  he  had  confined  himself  to  oral 
preaching,  but  in  the  fourth  year  of  king  Jehoia- 
kim’s  reign,  he  dictated  to  Baruch  the  scribe,  the 
prophecies  he  had  hitherto  delivered  orally. 
“  And  Jeremiah  commanded  Baruch,  saying,  I  am 
shut  up ;  I  cannot  go  into  the  house  of  the  Lord : 
therefore  go  thou,  and  read  in  the  roll,  which  thou 
hast  written  from  my  mouth,  the  words  of  the 
Lord  in  the  ears  of  the  people  in  the  Lord’s  house 
upon  the  fast  day.  ...  It  may  be  they  will  pre¬ 
sent  their  supplication  before  the  Lord,  and  will 
return  every  one  from  his  evil  way.  .  .  .”  46  The 
passage  is  deeply  significant,  both  because  it  states 
the  purpose  of  the  writing,  which  is  thus  seen  to 
be  identical  with  the  purpose  of  Jeremiah’s  oral 
preaching  —  namely,  to  recall  Judah  from  its 
“  evil  way  ” —  and  because  it  also  explicitly 
states  the  reason  for  the  substitution  of  the  writ¬ 
ten  for  the  oral  form  of  address.  The  reason  is 
suggested  by  the  statement  “  I  am  shut  up,  I  can¬ 
not  go  into  the  house  of  the  Lord.”  This  has  been 
interpreted  47  to  mean,  not  that  Jeremiah  was  in 
prison  at  the  time,  for  this  could  not  have  been 
the  case,  but  that  he  was  in  danger  of  his  life,  if 
he  appeared  in  public.  Indeed,  as  a  result  of 
Baruch’s  public  reading  of  the  roll  before  the 

46jer.  36:1-6. 

47  Batten,  The  Hebrew  Prophet,  p.  145. 


THE  PROPHETS 


S3 


king,  an  attempt  was  made  to  imprison  both  the 
prophet  and  the  scribe.  The  significance  of  the 
whole  incident  is  unmistakable.  The  change 
from  the  oral  to  the  written  form  of  prophecy 
was  due  to  the  fact  that,  for  one  reason  or  another, 
it  had  become  impossible  for  the  prophet  to  reach 
the  ears  of  the  people,  so  that  he  was  obliged  to 
have  recourse  for  the  delivery  of  his  message,  to 
the  written  form. 

As  a  result  of  this  change,  we  have  the  prophet¬ 
ical  literature,  which  comprises  more  than  one- 
half  the  contents  of  the  Old  Testament.  When 
we  examine  this  literature  with  a  view  to  ascer¬ 
taining  its  literary  characteristics,  we  find  that 
it  is  in  form  dramatic,  that  it  is  written  in  the 
form  of  dialogue,  but  with  the  names  of  the  speak¬ 
ers  omitted.  Such  an  omission  adds  incalculably 
to  the  difficulty  of  understanding  the  prophetic 
books,  for  one  is  continually  at  a  loss  to  identify 
the  speaker  in  a  given  passage.  Usually  the  chief 
speaker  is  Jehovah;  sometimes  it  is  the  prophet 
himself  who  speaks  for  Jehovah,  while  the  other 
parts  of  the  dialogue  are  borne  by  the  people. 
Often,  however,  the  dialogue  is  rendered  more  com¬ 
plex  by  the  introduction  of  other  speakers.  Now, 
these  are  the  heathen ;  and  again,  they  are  merely 
disembodied  voices  who  interrupt  the  speeches 
with  lyric  utterances  expressing  the  feelings 
aroused  by  the  preceding  speech,  in  this  way  re¬ 
sembling  the  choruses  in  an  oratorio.  To  real¬ 
ize  what  a  serious  obstacle  to  the  understanding 


34  OUR  MODERN  DEBT  TO  ISRAEL 


of  written  prophecy  is  offered  by  the  omission  of 
the  names  of  the  speakers,  one  has  but  to  consider 
how  difficult  it  would  be  to  read  intelligently  one 
of  Shakespeare’s  plays  under  similar  conditions 
—  that  is,  wTith  no  suggestion  as  to  who  is  speak¬ 
ing,  and  with  no  indentation  of  the  lines  to  in¬ 
dicate  a  change  of  speaker.  As  an  illustration 
we  may  glance  at  a  few  familiar  lines  from  one  of 
Shakespeare’s  best-known  plays  48  printed,  as  the 
prophetic  books  are  usually  printed,  in  a  way 
to  give  the  minimum  of  help  to  the  understand¬ 
ing. 

44  Why  doth  the  Jew  pause?  take  thy  forfeiture. 
Give  me  my  principal  and  let  me  go.  I  have  it 
ready  for  thee ;  here  it  is.  He  hath  refused  it  in 
the  open  court:  He  shall  have  merely  justice  and 
his  bond.  A  Daniel,  still  say  I,  a  second  Daniel ! 
I  thank  thee,  Jew,  for  teaching  me  that  word. 
Shall  I  not  barely  have  my  principal?  Thou 
shalt  have  nothing  but  the  forfeiture,  to  be  so 
taken  at  thy  peril,  Jew.  Why,  then  the  devil 
give  him  good  of  it !  I’ll  stay  no  longer  here  in 
question.” 

An  example  of  the  simplest  form  of  prophetic 
dialogue  is  found  in  the  sixty-third  chapter  of 
Isaiah  —  the  vision  of  the  divine  Warrior  from 
Edom.  The  speakers  are  the  prophet  and  Jeho¬ 
vah,  the  two  awed  questions  of  the  prophet  being 
answered  by  the  stately  announcement  of  Him 
48  The  Merchant  of  Venice,  Act  IV.,  Sc.  I.,  11,  335-344. 


THE  PROPHETS 


35 


who  comes  to  judge  the  earth,  and  save  His  peo¬ 
ple.49 

(The  Prophet.) 

Who  is  this  that  cometh  from  Edom, 

With  crimson  garments  from  Bozrah? 

This  that  is  glorious  in  his  apparel, 

Marching  in  the  greatness  of  his  strength? 

(Jehovah.) 

I  that  speak  in  righteousness, 

Mighty  to  save. 

(The  Prophet.) 

Wherefore  art  thou  red 
In  thine  apparel. 

And  thy  garments 

Like  him  that  tread eth  in  the  winefat? 

(Jehovah.) 

I  have  trodden  the  winepress  alone; 

And  of  the  peoples  there  was  no  man  with  me: 
Yea,  I  trod  them  in  mine  anger, 

And  trampled  them  in  my  fury; 

And  their  lifeblood  is  sprinkled  upon  my  gar¬ 
ments, 

And  I  have  stained  all  my  raiment. 

For  the  day  of  vengeance  was  in  my  heart, 

And  the  year  of  my  redeemed  is  come. 

And  I  looked,  and  there  was  none  to  help; 

And  I  wandered  that  there  was  none  to  uphold: 

49  The  arrangement  of  the  text  is  that  of  “  The  Modern 
Reader’s  Bible,”  edited  by  Professor  R.  G.  Moulton. 


36  OUR  MODERN  DEBT  TO  ISRAEL 


Therefore  mine  own  arm  brought  salvation  unto  me ; 

And  my  fury,  it  upheld  me. 

And  I  trod  down  the  peoples  in  mine  anger. 
And  made  them  drunk  in  my  fury. 

And  I  poured  out  their  lifeblood  on  the  earth. 

A  more  elaborate  example  of  the  prophetic  di¬ 
alogue,  and  more  difficult  to  understand  as  ordi¬ 
narily  printed,  because  in  it  occur  the  lyrical 
cries  of  disembodied  voices,  is  found  in  the  fortieth 
chapter  of  Isaiah. 

(Jehovah.) 

Comfort  ye,  comfort  ye  my  people  saith  your  God. 

Speak  ye  comfortably  to  Jerusalem, 

And  cry  unto  her. 

That  her  warfare  is  accomplished, 

That  her  iniquity  is  pardoned 
That  she  hath  received  of  the  Lord’s  hand 
double  for  all  her  sins. 

(First  Voice.) 

Prepare  ye  in  the  wilderness  the  way  of  the  Lord, 
Make  straight  in  the  desert  a  high  way  for 
our  God. 

Every  valley  shall  be  exalted. 

And  every  mountain  and  hill  shall  be  made 
low: 

And  the  crooked  shall  be  made  straight, 

And  the  rough  places  plain: 

And  the  glory  of  the  Lord  shall  be  revealed, 

And  all  flesh  shall  see  it  together: 

For  the  mouth  of  the  Lord  hath  spoken  it. 

(Second  Voice.) 


Cry! 


THE  PROPHETS 


37 


(Third  Voice.) 

What  shall  I  cry? 

All  flesh  is  grass, 

And  all  the  goodliness  thereof  is  as  the  flower  of 
the  field: 

The  grass  withereth, 

The  flower  fadeth, 

Because  the  breath  of  the  Lord  bloweth  upon 
it: 

Surely  the  people  is  grass ! 

(Fourth  Voice.) 

The  grass  withereth, 

The  flower  fadeth: 

But  the  word  of  our  God  shall  stand  for  ever. 

(Fifth  Voice.) 

O  thou  that  tellest  good  tidings  to  Zion, 

Get  thee  up  into  the  high  mountain; 

O  thou  that  tellest  good  tidings  to  Jerusalem, 
Lift  up  thy  voice  with  strength; 

Lift  it  up,  be  not  afraid; 

Say  unto  the  cities  of  Judah,  Behold,  your 
God! 

(Sixth  Voice.) 

Behold  the  Lord  God  will  come  as  a  mighty  one, 
And  his  arm  shall  rule  for  him: 

Behold,  his  reward  is  with  him, 

And  his  recompence  before  him. 

He  shall  feed  his  flock  like  a  shepherd, 

He  shall  gather  the  lambs  in  his  arm, 

And  carry  them  in  his  bosom, 

And  shall  gently  lead  them  that  give  suck. 


38  OUR  MODERN  DEBT  TO  ISRAEL 


Sometimes  the  prophetic  dialogue  is  further 
complicated  and  obscured  by  the  introduction  of 
description,  or  of  narrated  vision,  designed  to  fur¬ 
nish  a  background  or  setting  for  the  dialogue. 
An  interesting  illustration  is  furnished  by  the 
tenth  chapter  of  Isaiah,  where  the  message  con¬ 
cerning  Assyria  is,  without  any  explanation,  in¬ 
terrupted  by  a  narrated  vision  of  the  approach 
from  the  north  of  an  invading  army  of  Assyrians, 
and  the  consternation  caused  by  its  devastating 
march  toward  the  holy  city. 

He  is  come  to  Aiath  — 

He  is  passed  through  Migron  — 

At  Michmash  he  layeth  up  his  baggage  — 

They  are  gone  over  the  pass  — 

They  have  taken  up  their  lodging  at  Geba  — 
Ramah  trembleth  — 

Gibeah  of  Saul  is  fled. 

Cry  aloud  with  thy  voice,  O  daughter  of  Gallim! 
Hearken,  O  Laishah! 

O  thou  poor  Anathoth ! 

Madmenah  is  a  fugitive  — 

The  inhabitants  of  Gebim  gather  themselves  to  flee  — 
This  very  day  shall  he  halt  at  Nob  — 

He  shaketh  his  hand  at  the  mount  of  the  daughter  of 
Zion,  the  hill  of  Jerusalem. 

To  the  dramatic  complexity  of  Hebrew  proph¬ 
ecy  English  literature  furnishes  no  very  close  an¬ 
alogy.  Probably  the  nearest  approach  is  Shel¬ 
ley’s  lyrical  drama  Prometheus  Unbound.  A 


THE  PROPHETS 


39 


much  closer  analogy  is  furnished  by  the  sacred 
oratorio,  with  its  solos  corresponding  to  the  proph¬ 
etic  monologues,  its  duets  and  quartettes  corre¬ 
sponding  to  the  prophetic  dialogues,  and  its  crash¬ 
ing  choruses  corresponding  to  the  dirges  and  tri¬ 
umph  songs  of  prophecy. 

Thus  by  stirring  address,  by  the  lyric  utter¬ 
ance  of  impassioned  poetry,  now  by  symbolic 
acts,  now  by  written  tract  or  historical  illustra¬ 
tion,  by  whatever  best  means  were  at  hand,  the 
prophets  sought  to  impress  upon  the  half-awak¬ 
ened  conscience  of  the  nation, —  upon  careless 
monarchs  and  yet  more  careless  people  —  the  di¬ 
vinely  inspired  truths  that  glowed  within  their 
own  enlightened  souls.  Sometimes  they  played 
the  role  of  statesmen,  fearlessly  advocating  the 
theory  that  Israel  was  a  theocracy ;  sometimes 
they  played  the  role  of  social  reformers,  pointing 
out  the  evils  of  the  social  system,  luxury,  the  lust 
of  the  eye,  and  the  pride  of  life,  and  the  oppres¬ 
sion  of  the  poor.  As  social  reformers,  they  be¬ 
came  the  champions  of  the  oppressed ;  and  as  such, 
they  assailed  most  often  those  sins  of  commercial 
dishonesty  which  in  modern  times  have  been  sup¬ 
posed  to  be  particularly  characteristic  of  the  Jew, 
but  from  which  Gentiles  are  not,  it  appears, 
wholly  exempt.  Always  they  stood  forth  as  eth¬ 
ical  and  religious  leaders. 

Their  ethical  and  religious  teaching  may  be 
summarized  in  three  fundamental  propositions. 
Their  most  insistent  emphasis  was  upon  the  na- 


40  OUR  MODERN  DEBT  TO  ISRAEL 


tion’s  obligation  to  be  faithful  to  the  covenant  be¬ 
tween  Jehovah  and  Israel,  whereby  Jehovah  had 
chosen  Israel  out  of  all  the  nations  of  the  earth 
to  be  His  people,  and  whereby  they  in  return  had 
elected  to  serve  Him  faithfully.  Though  this 
idea  of  the  covenant  was  the  most  fundamental 
part  of  the  prophetic  teaching,  the  second  was 
scarcely  less  important  —  namely,  the  purpose  of 
the  covenant,  which  was  the  building  up  of  a  king¬ 
dom  of  God  on  earth.  Such  a  kingdom  was  to  be 
the  external  expression  of  the  covenant,  for  the 
end  and  aim  of  the  covenant  was,  in  the  prophetic 
thought,  the  kingdom  of  God  on  earth  founded, 
and  though  not  yet  realized,  destined  to  be  real¬ 
ized  as  a  universal  dominion  through  Israel. 
Closely  allied  to  this  thought  of  the  hope  of  Israel 
as  part  of  the  larger  hope  for  the  world  at  large 
was  the  third  of  the  prophetic  ideals  —  the  con¬ 
servation  of  the  Hebrew  state,  as  the  condition 
of  realizing  the  hope  of  a  kingdom  of  God  on 
earth.  The  Israelitish  state  as  it  then  existed 
seemed  to  them  a  sacred  thing,  because  it  was 
in  their  thought  the  kingdom  of  God  already 
formed  and  destined  to  attain  to  a  perfect  purity 
of  faith  and  morals,  and  to  become  the  spiritual 
leader  of  the  nations  of  the  world.  Ultimately, 
it  is  true,  the  prophets  did  come  to  realize  that 
the  kingdom  of  God  might  exist  apart  from  any 
embodiment  of  it  in  the  form  of  a  political  state, 
that,  indeed,  the  destruction  of  the  Jewish  state 
might  be  the  triumph  of  their  God  —  the  triumph 


THE  PROPHETS 


41 


of  righteousness  over  sin  —  and  that,  therefore, 
the  religious  ideals  of  Israel  might  survive  their 
national  overthrow.  But  it  was  not  till  after  the 
Exile,  when  the  scepter  was  seen  to  have  departed 
forever  from  Judah,  that  such  a  complete  spirit¬ 
ualization  of  the  hope  of  Israel  could  occur. 

It  is  in  the  union  of  aims  at  the  same  time  so 
idealistic  and  so  practical  as  those  embodied  in 
the  three  propositions  just  referred  to,  that  the 
uniqueness  of  Israelitish  prophecy .  consists. 
Other  nations  had  their  prophets ;  but  a  succes¬ 
sion  of  men  so  absorbed  in  “  the  living  God,”  and 
at  the  same  time  so  intensely  practical  in  their 
aims,  at  once  statesmen,  reformers,  and  idealists, 
cannot  be  found  in  antiquity  outside  of  Israel. 
In  a  very  true  sense  it  may  be  said  that  prophecy 
is  one  of  the  world’s  debts  to  Israel,  for,  taken 
as  a  class,  the  Hebrew  prophets  have  been  without 
a  parallel  in  human  history  in  their  work  and 
influence . 

The  influence  of  the  prophets  upon  modern 
thought  has  been  simply  incalculable.  Lowell’s 
poetical  assertion  is  entirely  capable  of  proof. 

Slowly  the  bible  of  the  race  is  writ, 

And  not  on  paper  leaves,  nor  leaves  of  stone; 

Each  age,  each  kindred  adds  to  it, 

Texts  of  despair  or  hope,  of  joy  or  moan. 

While  swings  the  sea,  while  mists  the  mountains 
shroud, 

While  thunder’s  surges  burst  on  cliffs  of  cloud, 
Still  at  the  prophets’  feet  the  nations  sit. 


4>2  OUR  MODERN  DEBT  TO  ISRAEL 


To  each  of  the  prophets  the  world  owes  the 
formulation  of  some  essential  truth  which  today 
forms  a  part  of  our  common  stock  of  ethical  ideas. 
Of  the  prophets  of  the  eighth  century,  the  world 
owes  to  Amos  the  first  adequate  statement  of  the 
truth  that  God  is  a  God  of  moral  righteousness, 
and  that  He  demands  a  moral  righteousness  in 
man  to  correspond  with  it.  Amos  first  taught 
that  justice  and  righteousness  are  the  only  reali¬ 
ties  in  heaven  and  on  earth.  Jehovah’s  require¬ 
ments  are,  in  his  view,  few  and  simple  :  “  Seek 

good  and  not  evil.  .  .  .  Hate  the  evil  and 
love  the  good,  and  establish  judgement  in  the 

gate . Let  judgement  roll  down  as 

waters,  and  righteousness  as  a  mighty  stream.”  50 
In  stating  these  requirements  Amos  introduced 
the  epoch-making  teaching  that  God  demanded 
justice  between  nation  and  nation,  man  and  man, 
rather  than  sacred  assemblies  and  offerings,  that 
indeed  the  most  elaborate  worship  is  but  an  insult 
to  God  when  offered  by  those  who  have  no  mind  to 
conform  their  wills  and  conduct  to  His  require¬ 
ments.  Such  an  elementary  but  eternal  truth  as 
this  can  never  become  superfluous  nor  obsolete. 
In  Amos’  recognition  of  the  fact  that  God  is  a  God 
of  justice;  and  that  religion  —  the  moral  rela¬ 
tion  of  man  to  God  —  meant  primarily  righteous¬ 
ness,  we  have  one  of  the  most  notable  contribu¬ 
tions  ever  offered  to  the  ethical  equipment  of  the 
race. 

bo  Amos  5 :14,  15,  24. 


THE  PROPHETS 


43 


Not  less  notable  was  the  contribution  of  Hosea, 
the  second  of  44  the  writing  prophets.”  Amos  had 
revealed  God  as  a  God  of  righteousness ;  Hosea 
revealed  Him  as  a  God  of  mercy.  We  sing  to- 
day, 

There’s  a  wideness  in  God’s  mercy  like  the  wideness 
of  the  sea. 

And  a  kindness  in  His  justice  that  is  more  than  lib¬ 
erty. 

and  the  idea  seems  trite  enough ;  but  when  we  stop 
to  think  that  in  the  eighth  century  B.  C.  this 
thought  was  absolutely  new,  we  must  reckon  him 
who  first  formulated  it  one  of  the  greatest  relig¬ 
ious  geniuses  the  world  has  ever  seen.  Not  only 
is  Hosea  the  earliest  expositor  of  the  truth  that 
love  is  the  highest  attribute  of  God,  but  he  is  the 
first  to  set  forth  the  equally  important  truth  that 
God  asks  for  an  answering  love  from  men,  and 
that  the  lack  of  such  love  is  the  basis  for  Jehovah’s 
severest  censure.  It  is  because  44  truth,  loving¬ 
kindness,  knowledge  of  God  ”  are  lacking  that  He 
has  a  controversy  with  the  inhabitants  of  the 
land.”  51  44  Loving-kindness  and  not  sacrifice  ” 

are  what  He  desires,  and  44  knowledge  of  God 
more  than  burnt  offerings.”  52  Righteousness  and 
loving-kindness  are  to  be  sown  and  reaped  by  the 
people  if  they  hope  to  secure  and  retain  God’s 
favor.53  They  must  turn  to  God  and  44  keep  mercy 

bi  Hos.  4:1.  53  Hos.  10:12. 

52  Hos.  6:6. 


M  OUR  MODERN  DEBT  TO  ISRAEL 


and  judgement,  and  wait  on  thy  God  con¬ 
tinually.”  54  Thus,  Hosea  thinks  of  religion  as 
an  act  of  love.  And  in  the  utterance  of  these  two 
ideas  —  that  God  is  love,  and  that  44  he  prayeth 
best  who  loveth  best  ”  —  Hosea  profoundly  in¬ 
fluenced  both  the  thought  of  ancient  Israel  and 
that  of  the  modern  world.  44  It  is  not  too  much  to 
say,”  writes  Comill,55  44  that  the  entire  faith  and 
theology  of  later  Israel  grew  out  of  Hosea,  that 
all  its  characteristic  views  and  ideas  are  to  be  first 
found  in  his  book.”  It  is  equally  true  that  to  him 
44  the  faith  and  theology  ”  of  the  Gentile  world 
owes  an  incalculable  debt.  One  finds  it  every¬ 
where.  When  Whittier  sings, 

Immortal  Love,  forever  full, 

Forever  flowing  free, 

Forever  shared,  forever  whole, 

A  never-ebbing  sea! 

We  bring  no  ghastly  holocaust, 

We  pile  no  graven  stone; 

He  serves  thee  best  who  loveth  most 
His  brothers  and  Thy  own. 

Thy  litanies,  sweet  offices 
Of  love  and  gratitude; 

Thy  sacramental  liturgies 
The  joy  of  doing  good.66 

54  Hos.  12:6. 

55  Prophets  of  Israel,  p.  53. 

56  “  Our  Master,”  11.  1-4,  and  137-145. 


THE  PROPHETS 


45 


we  recognize  the  “  characteristic  views  and  ideas  ” 
of  the  prophet  who  has  not  been  inaptly  called  57 
“  the  Saint  John  of  the  Old  Testament.” 

To  Isaiah,  also,  the  world  owes  some  of  its 
most  valued  intellectual  possessions.  It  was 
Isaiah,  the  statesman,  who  first  formulated  a  real 
philosophy  of  history.  He  was  the  first  to  see 
in  human  history,  not  a  meaningless  succession  of 
unrelated  events,  but  a  gradually  unfolding  rev¬ 
elation  of  God’s  purposes  for  humanity.  His¬ 
tory  is  to  Isaiah  a  drama,  whose  stage  is  the  world, 
and  all  the  men  and  women  in  it  merely  players. 
Its  solemn  scenes  and  acts  present  an  articulated 
plan,  a  divine  purpose  which  is  being  progressively 
realized  in  the  providential  government  of  the 
world.58  Even  in  the  stirring  political  changes 
of  his  own  time,  Isaiah  saw  the  ordered  progress 
of  a  drama  whose  denouement  should  be  a  day  of 
crisis  and  of  final  hope  for  humanity.  And  thus, 
in  Isaiah’s  thought,  Jehovah  “  reigns  supreme 
alike  in  the  realm  of  nature,  and  the  sphere  of 
human  history;  and  the  crash  of  kingdoms,  the 
total  dissolution  of  the  old  order  of  the  Hebrew 
world,  which  accompanied  the  advance  of  Assyria, 
is  to  the  prophet  nothing  else  than  the  crowning 
proof  of  Jehovah’s  absolute  dominion,  asserting 
itself  in  the  abasement  of  all  that  disputes  His 
supremacy.”  59  The  failure  of  Israel’s  leaders  to 

57  Fairweather,  The  Pre-Exilic  Prophets,  p.  47. 

88  See  Is.  5:12;  10:12,  23;  14:24,  26  ff;  28:21  ff. 

59  Robertson  Smith,  Prophets,  p.  226. 


46  OUR  MODERN  DEBT  TO  ISRAEL 


see  human  history  as  the  working  out  of  a  divine 
plan  is  the  cause  of  severe  denunciation.60  More¬ 
over,  his  own  recognition  of  it  is  the  source  of  the 
sublime  confidence,  which  has  been  remarked61  as 
one  of  his  most  pronounced  characteristics. 
44  What  supernatural  confidence  is  necessary,” 
says  Orelli,  44  in  the  very  age  when  God’s  true  ser¬ 
vants  were  compelled  to  announce  ruthless  judg¬ 
ment  on  the  temple,  and  it  seemed  as  if  .  .  . 
God’s  kingdom  in  Israel  was  a  beautiful  dream 
lacking  confirmation,  to  promise  such  a  position 
in  the  world  to  this  very  temple !  ”  No  wonder 
that,  with  such  discernment,  Isaiah  has  been  called 
the  44  prophet  of  faith.” 

He  might  also  justly  be  called  the  44  prophet  of 
reverence,”  for  in  his  emphasis  upon  reverence 
as  a  fundamental  element  in  religion,  Isaiah  made 
an  important  contribution  to  the  world’s  stock  of 
theological  ideas.  His  ideal  of  true  religion  is 
distinctly  stated  in  the  words,  44  Jehovah  of  hosts, 
Him  shall  ye  sanctify,  and  let  Him  be  your 
dread.”  62  Isaiah  believed,  as  Dante  and  Spenser 
afterwards  believed,  that  the  first  of  mortal  sins 
was  pride.  His  statement  implies,  therefore,  that 
the  prime  necessity  for  Godly  living  is  the  negation 
of  pride.  Man’s  proper  attitude  is  one  of  humility 
before  Him  who  alone  is  exalted.63  It  implies, 

60  E.  g.  Is.  22: 11. 

61  Orelli,  Old  Testament  Prophecy,  p.  258. 

62  Is.  8:13,  cf.  29:13. 

63  Is.  2:11. 


THE  PROPHETS 


47 


also,  implicit  trust  and  submission  to  His  will,  for 
Isaiah  makes  humble  faith  the  basis,  not  only  of 
political,  but  of  religious  life  as  well.  For  some 
thirty  centuries  men  have  been  testing  the  truth 
of  the  prophet’s  declaration.  Now  it  seems  a 
truism  when  we  read  in  Tennyson’s  poetry, 

Kind  hearts  are  more  than  coronets, 

And  simple  faith  than  Norman  blood. 

But  we  must  not  forget  that  these  spiritual  dis¬ 
coveries,  which  are  as  familiar  to  us  now  as  the 
principle  of  gravitation,  were  once  newly  dis¬ 
covered  by  men  who  deserve,  therefore,  not  less, 
but  more  gratitude  from  us  than  does  he  who  re¬ 
vealed  for  the  first  time  some  natural  law. 

It  was  reserved  for  a  humbler  prophet  than 
Isaiah,  however,  to  utter  what  was  undoubtedly 
the  noblest  affirmation  of  Hebrew  prophecy. 
This  is  found  in  Micah’s  reply  to  the  eager  ques¬ 
tion  of  the  penitent  people  who  ask  whether  it 
will  suffice  for  them  to  offer  their  first  born  in 
sacrifice  for  their  transgressions,  “  He  hath 
showed  thee,  O  man,  what  is  good ;  and  what  doth 
the  Lord  require  of  thee,  but  to  do  justly,  and  to 
love  mercy,  and  to  walk  humbly  with  thy  God.”  64 
Here  we  have  combined  the  essential  teachings  of 
all  the  prophets  who  had  gone  before.  Amos  had 
laid  stress  upon  the  necessity  of  righteousness,  and 
Micah  exhorts  men  to  “  do  justly.”  Hosea  had 

04  Micah  6 :8. 


48  OUR  MODERN  DEBT  TO  ISRAEL 


preached  the  necessity  of  love;  and  here  Micah 
insists  upon  loving-kindness  as  one  of  the  three 
fundamentals  of  religion.  Isaiah  had  emphasized 
the  need  of  humble  faith;  and  Micah  demands  a 
lowly  walk  with  God  as  a  primary  religious  virtue. 
Thus,  Micah  embodies  the  great  ethical  ideas 
which  his  predecessors  had  stated,  combining  jus¬ 
tice,  love  and  humble  faith  in  one  great  categorical 
imperative.  The  requirements  of  true  religion 
never  were  better  stated.  Israel’s  teachers  of  a 
later  day  could  do  little  more  than  reiterate  what 
Micah  had  already  said.  44  True  religion  and  un¬ 
defiled  before  God  and  the  Father  is  this,” 
said  the  apostle  James,65  44  to  visit  the  fatherless 
and  the  widow  in  their  affliction,  and  keep  him¬ 
self  unspotted  from  the  world.”  Nor  has  any  one 
in  all  the  Christian  centuries  been  able  to  formu¬ 
late  a  better  statement.  Justice  between  man  and 
man,  charity,  and  humble-hearted  faith  are  still 
the  sum  total  of  God’s  requirements. 

To  the  prophets  of  the  seventh  century,  also, 
the  debt  of  the  modem  world  is  very  great.  To 
the  prophet  Zephaniah  it  owes  the  first  complete 
and  adequate  statement  of  the  relation  of  national 
sin  and  retribution.  He  it  was  who  saw  clearly 
that  moral  forces  must  be  reckoned  with  in  the 
world’s  administration,  that  national  wrong-doing 
will  be  followed  by  national  punishment  as  inev¬ 
itably  as  the  night  follows  the  day,  because  such 
a  sequence  is  part  of  the  moral  order  of  the  world. 

65  James  1:27. 


THE  PROPHETS 


49 


This  punishment  he  foresees  as  “  Jehovah’s  day,” 
the  triumph  of  righteousness  over  sin.  In 
language  of  somber  vigor  he  pictures  this  day  of 
vengeance : 

The  great  Day  of  the  Lord  is  near: 

It  is  near  and  hasteth  greatly ! 

Even  the  voice  of  the  Day  of  the  Lord; 

The  mighty  man  crieth  there  bitterly ! 

That  Day  is  a  day  of  wrath, 

A  day  of  trouble  and  distress, 

A  day  of  wasteness  and  desolation, 

A  day  of  darkness  and  gloominess, 

A  day  of  clouds  and  thick  darkness, 

A  day  of  the  trumpet  and  alarm 

Against  the  fenced  cities, 

And  against  the  high  battlements ! 

And  I  will  bring  distress  upon  men,  that  they 
shall  walk  like  blind  men,  because  they  have  sinned 
against  the  Lord:  and  their  blood  shall  be  poured 
out  as  dust,  and  their  flesh  as  dung.  Neither  their 
silver  nor  their  gold  shall  be  able  to  deliver  them  in 
the  day  of  the  Lord’s  wrath ;  but  the  whole  land 
shall  be  devoured  by  the  fire  of  his  jealousy:  for 
he  shall  make  an  end,  yea,  a  terrible  end,  of  all 
them  that  dwell  in  the  land.”  66 

As  illustrative  of  the  extent  of  Zephaniah’s  in¬ 
fluence  upon  the  thought  of  Christendom,  it  may 
be  sufficient  to  remind  ourselves  that  the  passage 
66  Zeph.  1:14-18. 


50  OUR  MODERN  DEBT  TO  ISRAEL 


just  quoted  has  inspired  the  most  stately  of  the 
hymns  of  the  Christian  church.  The  Dies  irae  of 
Thomas  of  Celano,  a  Franciscan  monk  of  the 
thirteenth  century,  is  little  more  than  a  paraphrase 
and  expansion  of  the  Vulgate  translation  of  Zeph- 
aniah’s  “  doom  song.” 

The  message  of  Zephaniah  was  reiterated  and 
re-emphasized  by  his  contemporary  Nahum.  The 
latter’s  “  taunt  song  ”  over  doomed  Assyria, 
weakened  by  the  Scythian  invasions,  and  soon  to 
fall  before  the  rising  power  of  the  Persians  and 
the  Medes,  is  not  a  mere  diatribe  against  a  hostile 
nation,  nor  is  it  “  only  an  exultant  cry  of  ven¬ 
geance  from  the  cruelly  oppressed.” 67  Nahum 
had  a  great  truth  to  proclaim,  the  eternal  prin¬ 
ciple  that  they  who  do  not  rule  in  righteousness 
shall  perish  from  the  earth,  that  the  world’s  king¬ 
doms  built  on  the  foundation  of  force  and  fraud 
are  destined  to  certain  destruction.  Nahum  saw 
the  truth  that  tyranny  is  suicide.  It  is  a  truth 
that  the  nations  have  been  slow  to  learn,  which, 
indeed,  the  great  empires  of  antiquity  never 
learned,  which  Spain  learned  only  after  the  dis¬ 
integration  of  that  once  powerful  empire,  and 
which  Christian  America  has  learned  only  through 
the  discipline  of  a  most  bitter  experience.  Only 
through  the  suffering  of  the  civil  war  did  America 
come  to  realize  that  the  penalty  of  tyranny  is 
appalling  and  inevitable.  It  was  Lincoln,  the 

67  Fowler,  The  Prophets ,  p.  53. 


THE  PROPHETS 


51 


great  interpreter  of  the  democratic  spirit,  who 
said:  68 

“  Fondly  do  we  hope,  fervently  do  we  pray,  that 
this  mighty  scourge  of  war  may  speedily  pass 
away.  Yet  if  God  wills  that  it  continue  until  all 
the  wealth  piled  by  the  bondsman’s  two  hundred 
and  fifty  years  of  unrequited  toil  shall  be  sunk,  and 
until  every  drop  of  blood  drawn  with  the  lash 
shall  be  paid  by  another  drawn  by  the  sword,  as 
was  said  three  thousand  years  ago,  so  still  it  must 
be  said  that  the  judgments  of  the  Lord  are  true 
and  righteous  altogether.”  Certainly  no  judg¬ 
ment  of  the  Lord  is  truer  or  more  righteous  than 
this  which  Nahum  enunciated  in  the  seventh  cen¬ 
tury  B.  C. 

No  less  timely,  and  no  less  influential  in  mold¬ 
ing  the  thought  of  a  later  age,  was  the  truth  set 
forth  by  Habakkuk.  Looking  from  his  prophetic 
watch-tower  upon  the  nations  surrounding  Israel, 
and  seeing  nothing  but  the  tyranny  of  the  strong 
oppressing  the  weak,  the  Chaldeans  even  more  in¬ 
solent  and  overbearing  than  the  Assyrians  whom 
they  had  overthrown,  his  faith  in  the  moral  gov¬ 
ernment  of  the  world  seems  partially  to  fail,  and 
he  cries  out,69  “  Thou  that  art  of  purer  eyes  than 
to  behold  evil,  and  that  canst  not  look  on  perverse¬ 
ness,  wherefore  lookest  thou  upon  them  that  deal 
treacherously,  and  boldest  thy  peace  when  the 

68  The  Second  Inaugural  Address. 

69  Hab.  1 :13. 


52  OUR  MODERN  DEBT  TO  ISRAEL 


wicked  swalloweth  up  the  man  that  is  more  right¬ 
eous  than  he ;  and  makest  men  as  the  fishes  of  the 
sea,  as  the  creeping  things,  that  have  no  ruler 
over  them?  He  taketh  up  all  of  them  with  the 
angle,  he  catcheth  them  in  his  net,  and  gathereth 
them  in  his  drag:  therefore  he  rejoiceth  and  is 
glad.”  Jehovah’s  answer  given  in  the  following 
section  of  the  dialogue  70  is  this,  44  Behold  his  soul 
is  puffed  up,  it  is  not  upright  in  him:  but  the  just 
shall  live  by  his  faith.”  The  meaning  is  that  the 
Chaldean  44  flown  with  insolence  and  wine  ”  is 
doomed  by  his  very  arrogance  to  a  speedy  over¬ 
throw  according  to  the  ancient  law  that  pride  is 
the  forerunner  of  destruction ;  whereas  the  right¬ 
eous  shall  survive  by  his  endurance,  his  fidelity, 
his  stedfast  integrity.  It  was  a  message  that 
Israel  took  to  heart.  Through  centuries  of  suf¬ 
fering  the  oppressor’s  wrong,  and  the  spurns  that 
patient  merit  of  the  unworthy  takes,  Israel  has 
stood  firm,  living  by  his  faith.  Endurance  has 
been  for  three  thousand  years  the  most  obvious, 
and  by  no  means  the  least  admirable  trait  of  the 
Hebrew  race.  And  it  is  a  quality  worthy  of  emu¬ 
lation.  It  is  the  quality  that  Saint  Paul  selects  71 
as  the  motto  of  Christianity.  44  The  just,”  he 
says,  44  shall  live  by  faith.”  72 

The  most  voluminous  writer  of  the  prophets  of 

70  Hab.  2:2,  3. 

71  Heb.  10:38. 

72  The  word  used  is  the  nearest  Greek  equivalent  of  the 
Hebrew  word  found  in  Habakkuk. 


THE  PROPHETS 


53 

the  seventh  century  was  Jeremiah,  and  his  mes¬ 
sage  was  in  importance  and  influence  quite  worthy 
of  the  space  the  prophecy  occupies  in  the  Old 
Testament  literature.  The  message  was  the 
product  of  a  personal  struggle.  No  prophet  was 
in  his  generation  more  unpopular.  Tradition 
says  he  was  finally  stoned  by  his  own  people.  Be 
that  as  it  may,  his  whole  life  was  a  martyrdom 
of  unsuccessful  struggle  against  fearful  odds. 
The  false  prophets  of  his  time  bitterly  resented 
his  arraignment  of  them.73  The  priests,  also, 
hated  him,  for  his  ridicule  of  the  doctrine  of  the 
inviolability  of  Mount  Zion,  which  had  been  for¬ 
mulated  by  Isaiah  in  the  preceding  century,  and 
had  afterwards  become  a  dogma.74  They  de¬ 
tested  him  still  more  for  his  fearless  denunciation 
of  their  pretensions.75  The  sages  execrated  him 
because  of  his  contempt  for  their  vaunted  wis¬ 
dom.76  The  princes  of  the  royal  house  vilified 
and  slandered  him  to  the  king,  demanding  his  exe¬ 
cution.77  His  fellow  citizens  of  Anathoth  planned 
his  assassination.78  King  Jehoiakim  heaped  in¬ 
sults  upon  him  by  burning  his  writings,79  and 
would  have  imprisoned  him,  had  he  been  able  to 
apprehend  him.  His  successor,  Zedekiah,  at  the 
suggestion  of  the  nobles,  did  actually  authorize 
his  imprisonment.80  Thus,  the  common  people 

73  Jer.  23:9  if,  and  chap.  28.  77  Jer.  38:4. 

74  Jer.  7:4.  78  Jer.  11:21,  22. 

75  Jer.  8:8.  79  Jer.  36:23. 

76  Jer.  8:9.  so  Jer.  38:4,  5. 


54  OUR  MODERN  DEBT  TO  ISRAEL 


and  the  political  and  intellectual  leaders  of  the 
nation  seem  to  have  ignored  their  differences  in 
their  common  hatred  of  this  man  who  brought 
them  such  an  amazing  and  unwelcome  message  of 
impending  ruin.81 

It  is  little  to  be  wondered  at  that  Jeremiah, 
tired  of  the  struggle,  should  have  longed  to  es¬ 
cape.82  Like  Job,  he  looked  upon  his  life  as  a 
long  servitude ;  and,  like  him,  he  cursed  the  day 
of  his  birth.83  He  seemed  to'  himself  to  have 
failed  in  his  mission,  and  doubted  the  genuineness 
of  his  call  to  undertake  it.84  Yet  out  of  his 
sense  of  failure,  and  out  of  his  sense  of  isolation 
from  his  people,  grew  a  keener  realization  than 
any  prophet  hitherto  had  felt  of  the  truth  that 
religion,  or  a  right  relationship  between  man  and 
God,  was  an  individual,  and  not  a  national,  mat¬ 
ter.  Such  a  discovery  could  not  have  come  even 
to  him,  had  not  the  indifference  of  careless  mon- 
archs  and  a  careless  people  forced  upon  him  the 
conviction  that  the  realization  of  the  religious 
ideals  of  Israel  could  be  hoped  for  no  longer  in 
the  corporate  life  of  the  nation,  but  only  in  the 
life  of  the  individual.  It  is  this  hope  which  alone 
saves  him  from  despair.  Like  Amos,85  a  century 
earlier,  he  too  looks  forward  to  a  happy  future 
for  Israel ;  but  the  two  prophets  conceive  of  this 
future  in  different  ways.  Amos  speaks  of  it  as  a 

81  See,  for  example,  Jer.  8:1-3. 

82  Jer.  9:2. 

93  Jer.  20:14  ff. 


84  Jer.  20:7. 

85  Amos  9:15. 


THE  PROPHETS 


55 


time  when  Israel  shall  be  restored  to  God’s  favor, 
and  to  national  integrity  and  prosperity.  Jere¬ 
miah,  on  the  other  hand,  while  he  predicts  that 
Jehovah  will  turn  again  the  captivity  of  Jacob’s 
tents,86  does  not  anticipate  a  renewal  of  the  old 
covenant  relations  between  Jehovah  and  Israel. 
Instead,  there  will  be  a  new  covenant  between  God 
and  the  individual  souls  of  His  people.  “  Behold, 
the  days  come,  saith  the  Lord,  that  I  will  make  a 
new  covenant  with  the  house  of  Israel,  and  with 
the  house  of  Judah:  not  according  to  the  cov¬ 
enant  that  I  made  with  their  fathers  .  .  . 
But  this  is  the  covenant  that  I  will  make  with  the 
house  of  Israel  after  those  days,  saith  the  Lord ; 
I  will  put  my  law  in  their  inward  parts,  and  in 
their  heart  will  I  write  it ;  and  I  will  be  their 
God,  and  they  shall  be  my  people.”  87  Scorn  and 
shame  and  persecution  were  the  portion  of  this 
martyr-prophet  in  his  life;  yet  out  of  his  suffer¬ 
ing  grew  a  new  conception  of  religion  as  a  cov¬ 
enant  between  God  and  the  individual  soul,  which 
is  today  the  most  treasured  possession  alike  of 
Jew  and  Gentile.88 

Between  the  prophets  of  the  seventh  century 
and  those  that  remain  to  be  considered,  there  in¬ 
tervenes  the  deep  and  wide  cleavage  of  the  Exile, 
with  the  momentous  changes  which  that  period 
produced  in  Jewish  life  and  thought.  As  a  result 

ssjer.  30:18. 

87  Jer.  31:31-33. 

88  See,  also,  Kirkpatrick,  The  Doctrine  of  the  Prophets,  pp. 
324,  325. 


56  OUR  MODERN  DEBT  TO  ISRAEL 


of  these  changes,  the  prophets  of  the  Exile  and 
the  restoration  faced  conditions  and  problems 
totally  different  from  those  of  their  predecessors. 
During  the  generation  that  they  lived  in  captivity, 
the  Jews,  with  that  marvelous  power  of  adapting 
themselves  to  their  surroundings  which  has  always 
been  a  characteristic  of  the  race,  became,  instead 
of  an  agricultural,  a  commercial  people.  There 
is  no  question  that  the  absorbing  interest  of  the 
modern  Jews  in  trade,  and  particularly  in  finance, 
is  not  a  fundamental  characteristic  of  the  race ; 
but  that  it  is  an  acquired  characteristic,  and  that 
it  is  due  to  the  influence  of  the  Exile.  How 
strong  that  influence  was  is  attested  by  the  fact 
that  through  all  the  changes  and  chances  of  their 
subsequent  history  the  Jewish  race  has  retained 
its  interest  in  commerce  and  finance. 

Perhaps  it  is  not  unreasonable  to  date  the  fond¬ 
ness  of  the  Jewish  race  for  statecraft,  also,  from 
the  apprenticeship  they  served  in  Chaldea.  There 
at  least  some  of  them  developed  administrative 
and  diplomatic  skill  of  no  mean  order.  Some  of 
them,  like  Joseph  in  Egypt,  rose  to  positions  of 
trust  and  responsibility  in  Babylon.  Daniel,  if 
we  are  to  credit  the  narrative  portions  of  the 
book  that  bears  his  name  as  being  wholly  his¬ 
torical,  occupied  high  administrative  positions 
successively  under  Nebuchadnezzar,  Belshazzar 
(NarbonidusP),  and  Darius,  the  Mede.  Zerub- 
babel  was  appointed  by  Cyrus  as  the  leader  of 
the  first  colonists  who  returned  to  Judea,  and  as 


THE  PROPHETS 


57 


governor  of  the  colony,  Ezra,  “  a  ready  scribe  of 
the  law,”  appears,  also,  to  have  been  high  in  favor 
at  the  Persian  court.  Artaxerxes  Longimanus 
gave  him  letters  and  money,  and  every  encourage¬ 
ment  in  his  work  of  collecting  and  leading  a  second 
body  of  returning  exiles  home.  Nehemiah  was 
cup-bearer  to  Artaxerxes  Longimanus ;  and  about 
444  B.  C.  was  commissioned  by  the  latter  as  gover¬ 
nor  of  Judea. 

To  the  great  majority  of  the  exiles,  however, 
there  came  no  advancement.  They  lived  as  best 
they  could  in  poverty,  and  sometimes  in  persecu¬ 
tion.  The  latter  was  most  violent  toward  the 
close  of  the  exile,  when  the  menacing  power  of 
Cyrus  caused  a  furious  outbreak  of  fanaticism 
among  the  Babylonians,  who  attributed  his  suc¬ 
cesses  to  the  anger  of  their  gods.  At  once  they 
sought  to  prove  their  religious  zeal  by  a  vigorous 
persecution  of  the  strangers  within  their  gates. 
Many  of  the  Jews  were  killed  and  all  suffered 
from  the  obloquy  which  is  always  the  lot  of  an 
alien  and  subject  people  when  exposed  to  the 
fanatical  hatred  of  a  stronger  and  dominant 
race.89  A  natural  result  was  the  development  in 
the  Jews  of  a  marked  degree  of  racial  narrowness 
and  intolerance. 

Even  more  significant  than  these  changes,  how¬ 
ever,  were  those  effected  by  the  Exile  in  the  emo- 

89  Some  inkling  of  the  suffering  of  this  period  may  be 
gathered  from  the  song  of  exiled  patriotism  (Psalm  137) 
which  probably  belongs  to  the  latter  part  of  the  Exile. 


58  OUR  MODERN  DEBT  TO  ISRAEL 


tional  and  intellectual  life  of  the  Jewish  race. 
The  interest  in  education,  so  marked  a  character¬ 
istic  of  modern  Judaism,  dates  from  the  Exile, 
and  is  due  to  the  intellectual  stimulus  afforded  by 
contact  with  Babylonian  culture.  Not  less  far- 
reaching  was  the  effect  of  the  compulsory  sepa¬ 
ration  of  the  race  during  the  Exile  from  the 
realities  of  civic  life.  The  result  was  an  amazing 
development  of  what  may  be  called  religious  imagi¬ 
nation.  The  exiles  were  inspired  by  great  hopes 
for  the  future ;  but  these  hopes  were  not  limited 
by  the  necessities  of  a  historical  situation  in  which 
they  should  be  realized.  Consequently  their  con¬ 
ceptions  of  the  future  in  store  for  Israel,  and  their 
descriptions  of  the  processes  by  which  that  future 
was  to  be  reached  became  colossal,  ornate,  and 
lavishly  symbolic.  The  tendency  to  the  use  of 
symbolism  was,  no  doubt,  quickened  by  the  rich 
imagery  of  Babylonian  art  by  which  during 
the  Exile  they  were  surrounded.  At  all  events, 
Jewish  literature  became,  to  a  degree  unthought 
of  hitherto,  apocalyptic.  The  leaders  of  Israel- 
itish  thought  came  to  represent  God’s  rule  of  the 
world,  and  His  providential  care  of  His  people, 
not  by  the  ordinary  political  and  military  processes 
of  history,  but  by  awful  convulsions  and  catas¬ 
trophes  both  in  nature  and  in  politics,  in  which 
God  Himself  appeared,  or  executed  His  will 
through  superhuman  agencies. 

One  of  the  strangest  effects  of  the  Exile  was 
the  development  of  ritual.  One  would  suppose 


THE  PROPHETS 


59 


that  the  destruction  of  the  temple  and  the  neces¬ 
sary  discontinuance  of  the  sacrifices  would  have 
opened  the  mind  of  Israel  to  more  spiritual  con¬ 
ceptions  of  God  as  of  one  who  dwelt  not  in  tem¬ 
ples  made  with  hands,  and  who  was  best  pleased 
with  the  sacrifices  of  a  broken  spirit.90  As  a 
matter  of  fact  their  thoughts  continually  turned 
to  the  “  holy  city  ”  and  the  ruined  temple.91 
The  sacrifices  were,  they  believed,  only  intermitted, 
not  forever  abolished.  Their  constant  prayer 
was, 

Do  good  in  thy  good  pleasure  unto  Zion: 

Build  thou  the  walls  of  Jerusalem. 

Then  shalt  thou  delight  in  the  sacrifices  of  righteous¬ 
ness. 

In  burnt  offering  and  whole  burnt  offering: 

Then  shall  they  offer  bullocks  upon  thine  altar.92 

The  temporary  discontinuance  of  the  temple  serv¬ 
ice  seemed  to  them  to  afford  a  chance  for  the  re¬ 
construction  of  the  temple  ritual  on  a  much  more 
elaborate  and  detailed  system.  Moreover,  such 
a  reconstruction  seemed  imperatively  needed  to 
make  the  ritual  express  the  stronger  sense  of 
guilt  which  the  punishment  of  the  Exile  impressed 
upon  the  mind  of  Israel. 

Closely  related  to  the  expansion  of  the  ritual 
was  the  growing  importance  of  the  priesthood, 
consequent  upon  the  fall  of  the  monarchy  and 
the  subsequent  absence  of  civic  life.  How  im- 

»2  Ps.  51:18,  19. 


90  ps.  51 :17. 


9i  Ps.  137. 


60  OUR  MODERN  DEBT  TO  ISRAEL 


portant  the  priesthood  became  in  post-Exilic  times 
may  be  inferred  from  the  number  of  priests  (4289) 
who  returned  to  Jerusalem  with  the  first  colonists 
—  a  very  large  proportion  when  we  consider  that 
the  whole  number  of  free  men  under  the  leader¬ 
ship  of  Zerubbabel  and  Joshua  was  only  forty-two 
thousand,  three  hundred  and  sixty.  Nor  did  the 
importance  of  the  priesthood  diminish.  Josephus 
in  his  account  of  the  service  in  Herod’s  temple, 
says  there  were  twenty  thousand  priests,  who 
were  divided  into  twenty  four  courses,  each 
“  course  ”  being  responsible  for  the  daily  sacri¬ 
fice  for  one  week.  During  the  continuance  of  the 
Jewish  national  life,  up  to  the  final  destruction 
of  the  temple  in  70  A.  D.,  the  priesthood  retained 
its  dominant  place  of  power  and  influence  in  poli¬ 
tics  and  religion. 

Only  by  considering  the  conditions  affecting 
the  development  of  the  priesthood  during  the 
Exile,  can  we  account  for  the  changes  that 
prophecy  underwent.  Prophecy  with  Amos  had 
begun  a  war  against  all  ritual,  saying,  “  I  hate, 
I  despise  your  fasts ;  I  will  not  smell  in  your 
solemn  assemblies  ”  ;  and  with  Jeremiah  had 
achieved  a  religion  independent  of  all  priesthood 
and  temple.  After  the  Exile,  prophecy  reap¬ 
pears,  but  in  a  totally  different  attitude  toward 
ritual.  Ezekiel  legislates  gravely  that  at  the  new 
moon  the  sacrifice  shall  be  one  bullock,  six  lambs, 
one  ram,  two  ephahs  of  flour,  and  two  hins  of  oil; 
and  Zechariah,  while  he  proclaims  the  Messianic 


THE  PROPHETS 


61 


king  and  high  priest  to  be  the  great  feeders  of  the 
national  life  and  worship,  finds  no  place  beside 
them  for  the  prophet. 

No  less  significant  than  the  changed  attitude 
toward  ritual  and  the  priesthood  was  the  changed 
conception  of  Jehovah  and  of  His  relation  to  the 
race.  Early  Israel  had  thought  of  their  God  as 
simply  the  God  of  Palestine  and  its  inhabitants. 
He  was  purely  a  local  divinity.  The  pre-Exilic 
prophets  had,  it  is  true,  taught  more  spiritualized 
ideas  of  God,  affirming  that  He  was  not  the  God 
of  Israel  alone,  but  of  all  the  families  of  the  earth. 
It  was  not  till  the  Exile,  however,  that  we  find 
the  complete  spiritualization  of  the  idea.  To  the 
Exiles  He  became  the  one  God,  omnipotent,  and 
transcending  all  space  relations.  They,  not 
Herbert  Spencer,  are  responsible  for  the  idea  of 
“  the  immanence  of  God.”  Only  in  Exilic,  or 
post-Exilic  times  could  have  been  written  the  lines 
of  Psalm  139,  beginning, 

Whither  shall  I  go  from  thy  spirit? 

Or  whither  shall  I  flee  from  thy  presence? 

If  I  ascend  up  into  heaven,  thou  art  there: 

If  I  make  my  bed  in  Sheol,  behold,  thou  art  there. 
If  I  take  the  wings  of  the  morning. 

And  dwell  in  the  uttermost  parts  of  the  sea; 
Even  there  shall  thy  hand  lead  me, 

And  thy  right  hand  shall  hold  me. 

If  I  say,  Surely  the  darkness  shall  overwhelm  me, 
And  the  light  about  me  shall  be  night; 

Even  the  darkness  hideth  not  from  thee. 


68  OUR  MODERN  DEBT  TO  ISRAEL 


But  the  night  shineth  as  the  day: 

The  darkness  and  the  light  are  both  alike  to  thee. 

for  not  till  then  did  the  Hebrews  conceive  of  a 
deity  in  whom,  to  borrow  the  expression  of  a 
Jew  of  a  later  age,  “  we  live  and  move  and  have 
our  being.” 

Such  an  exalted  conception  of  deity  encouraged 
a  tendency,  already  nascent,  to  think  of  the  neces¬ 
sity  of  mediators  between  God  and  His  people. 
Hence  came  about  the  prominence  given  to  angels, 
regarded  as  God’s  agents.  From  the  earliest 
times  the  Hebrews  had  thought  of  Jehovah  as 
surrounded  by  a  court  of  ministers  whose  duty 
it  was  to  celebrate  His  glory,  and  to  execute  His 
will.  They  were  called  male’akim,  or  messengers, 
a  word  which  the  Greeks  translated  ayyeAoi, 
whence  our  English  word  angels.  In  primitive 
Hebrew  religion  these  messengers  had  been  re¬ 
quired  by  the  fact  that  God’s  residence  was 
thought  of  as  confined  to  one  place,  namely  Mount 
Zion.  In  later  Jewish  thought  they  were  required 
rather  by  the  worshiper’s  unwillingness  to  con¬ 
ceive  of  Jehovah’s  personal  appearance  in  missions 
of  a  menial  nature.  Ezekiel,  for  example,  because 
he  is  unable  to  think  of  God  as  humbling  Himself 
to  explain  the  details  of  the  new  temple,  represents 
Him  as  making  use  of  intermediaries.  With  the 
post-Exilic  prophets  this  is  carried  much  further. 
Whereas  the  former  prophets,  Amos,  Isaiah,  and 
Jeremiah,  had  themselves  directly  interceded  with 
God  for  the  people,  Zechariah  describes  the  “  in- 


THE  PROPHETS 


63 


terp reting  angel ”  as  interceding,  and  as  receiv¬ 
ing  the  divine  comfort.93  In  Zechariah’s  prophecy 
we  find  for  the  first  time  in  Jewish  literature 
orders  and  ranks  of  angels.  Here,  also,  we  see 
the  beginnings  of  the  identification  of  special 
angels  with  different  peoples,  as  of  Michael  with 
Israel.94 

Such,  then,  were  some  of  the  effects  of  the 
increase  of  those  conceptions  of  God’s  sublimity 
and  awfulness,  which  were  destined  in  the  later 
thought  of  Israel  to  lift  Him  to  so  great  a  dis¬ 
tance  above  men ;  and  to  create  so  numerous  a 
host  of  intermediaries,  both  priestly  and  angelic, 
between  the  worshipper  and  his  God. 

Speaking  more  in  detail  of  the  contributions 
of  the  Exilic  and  the  post-Exilic  prophets  to  our 
ethical  equipment,  we  may  note  that  in  Ezekiel  we 
find  the  first  statement  of  the  idea  that  God’s 
dwelling  place  is  not  exclusively  in  the  temple  at 
Jerusalem,  but  that  where  His  worshippers  are, 
there  is  He  to  be  found.  In  the  vision  that  the 
prophet  saw  by  the  Chebar  canal,  we  are  told, 
in  gorgeous  imagery  that  has  supplied  Milton  with 
the  material  for  his  account  of  the  Messiah  in 

93  Zech.  1:12.  See  also  Zech.  3:1  ff  and  2:1  if.  In  the 
latter  passage  the  interpreting  angel  does  not  communicate 
directly  with  Deity,  but  receives  His  word  from  another 
angel  who  has  come  forth  from  the  immediate  presence  of 
Jehovah.  Later,  there  came  to  be  recognized  five  ranks  or 
orders  of  angels  —  the  “thrones,  dominations,  princedoms, 
virtues,  powers,”  of  Milton.  Paradise  Lost  V.  772. 

94  See  Dan.  10:13,  21;  12:1;  Jude  9;  Rev.  12:7. 


64  OUR  MODERN  DEBT  TO  ISRAEL 


his  chariot  of  wrath,95  how  Jehovah  left  the  tem¬ 
ple  at  Jerusalem  to  take  up  his  abode  among  the 
exiles  in  Chaldea.96 

The  beautiful  statement  in  the  Prayer-book, 
44  where  two  or  three  are  gathered  together  in  Thy 
name  there  art  Thou  in  the  midst  of  them,”  goes 
back  to  its  ultimate  source  to  Ezekiel,  and  is 
first  found  in  his  book.  Though  Jehovah  still 
remained  in  Hebrew  thought  a  personal,  and 
therefore  not  an  omnipresent,  God,  this  idea  of 
His  not  being  limited  to  one  place  marks  a  great 
advance  in  Israelitish  thought,  and  as  such 
prepares  the  way  for  the  fuller  expression  found 
in  the  book  of  Jonah  of  the  thought  of  a  God 
from  whose  44  face,”  or  presence,  it  is  not  possible 
to  flee. 

Another  contribution  of  Ezekiel  to  the  world’s 
religious  possessions  was  closely  connected  with 
the  work  of  his  predecessor,  Jeremiah.  The  lat¬ 
ter,  it  will  be  remembered,  had  emancipated 
Hebrew  religion  from  the  persistent  notion  that 
it  was  the  nation  and  not  the  individual  with 
whom  Jehovah  had  primarily  to  do.  The  sense 
of  individual  responsibility  in  matters  of  religion 
first  found  expression  in  Jeremiah,  who  taught 
that  a  man  must  stand  or  fall  on  his  own  merits. 
But  beyond  this  Jeremiah  had  not  gone.  It  re¬ 
mained  for  Ezekiel  to  develop  the  idea  of  reli¬ 
gious  fellowship  by  educating  his  compatriots 

as  Paradise  Lost,  Book  VI. 

96  Ezekiel  10:1;  11:16. 


THE  PROPHETS 


65 


not  only  to  live  religiously  as  individuals,  but  to 
live  as  religious  individuals  in  a  theocracy. 

Ezekiel’s  plan  of  a  holy  state  is  interesting 
partly  for  its  own  sake ;  partly  because  of  the 
comparison  that  it  inevitably  suggests  with  other 
and  later  utopias.  It  was  undoubtedly  the  first 
of  its  kind,  antedating  Plato’s  by  nearly  two 
centuries.97  Yet  the  fact  of  its  precedence  has 
been  persistently  ignored.  To  call  Plato’s  work 
the  first  ideal  commonwealth  has  become  one  of 
the  commonplaces  of  literary  criticism.  Richard 
Garnett,  for  example,  in  his  introduction  to  the 
“  Everyman  ”  edition  of  the  Republic ,9S  says  of 
it,  “  It  was  probably  the  first  in  which  full  ex¬ 
pression  was  given  to  the  longing  which  must 
of  necessity  arise  in  the  human  heart  when  the 
cosmos  and  the  individual  appear  at  odds,  so 
tersely  expressed  in  Fitzgerald’s  Omar  Khayyam: 

Ah  Love !  could  you  and  I  with  F ate  conspire 

To  grasp  this  sorry  Scheme  of  Things  entire, 
Would  we  not  shatter  it  to  bits  —  and  then 

Re-mould  it  nearer  to  the  Heart’s  Desire? 

07  The  exact  date  of  the  Republic  is  uncertain.  The  old 
belief  that  Aristophanes  ridicules  its  ideas  (community  of 
goods  and  of  women)  in  the  Ecclesiazusae  (393  B.  C.), 
and  that  it  was,  therefore,  known  so  early,  is  now  generally 
discredited.  Ezekiel’s  holy  state  is  described  in  the  last 
eight  chapters  of  his  book.  These  chapters  belong  to  the 
second  period  of  the  prophet’s  ministry;  that  is,  they  were 
written  some  time  within  the  period  which  opened  six 
months  after  the  fall  of  Jerusalem  (Jan.,  585  B.  C.)  and 
570  B.  C. 

98  The  Republic  of  Plato  in  Ten  Books  translated  from 
the  Greek  by  H.  Spens,  D.  D.,  Introduc.  p.  XII. 


66  OUR  MODERN  DEBT  TO  ISRAEL 


In  making  this  assertion,  Richard  Garnett  simply 
echoes  what  has  often  been  claimed.  In  a  Ger¬ 
man  work  upon  the  ideal  commonwealths,"  we 
find  the  author  writing  at  the  very  beginning  of 
the  chapter  on  Plato’s  Republic ,  “  Auf  hier,  wenn 
wir  die  Staatsgebilde  der  Phantasie  betrachten, 
muss  sich  das  Blick  zuerst  auf  Hellas  richten.” 

An  error  equally  prevalent  is  that  of  regarding 
Plato’s  Republic  as  the  inspiration  of  every  ideal 
commonwealth  planned  since  that  time.  That 
the  literary  influence  of  Plato  has  been  very  great, 
there  can,  of  course,  be  no  question.  Few  books 
have  been  so  influential.  Almost,  if  not  every 
vision  of  “  a  world  unrealized  ”  written  since  has 
owed  more  or  less  to  that  philosopher  with  the 
soul  of  a  poet,  who,  as  from  some  tower  of  specu¬ 
lation,  looked  into  the  future,  and  saw  the  vision 
of  the  world,  and  “  all  the  wonder  that  would  be.” 
He  it  was  who  suggested  such  treatises  as  St. 
Augustine’s  De  Civitate  Dei ,  and  More’s  Utopia ; 
and,  through  the  latter,  Campanella’s  Civitas 
Solis,  Bacon’s  New  Atlantis,  Harrington’s  Oceana , 
Hobbes’s  Leviathan,  Sir  John  Eliot’s  Monarchy 
of  Man,  Hall’s  Mundus  Alter  et  Idem,  Filmer’s 
Patriarcha,  Butler’s  Erewhon,  and  Bellamy’s 
Looking  Backward .10°  Moreover,  this  list  is 

99  The  German  work  referred  to  is  the  Schlarafjia 
Politico*,  published  anonymously  at  Leipsic  in  1892.  The 
quotation  is  from  page  7. 

100  Besides  the  speculative  treatises  mentioned  above,  we 
find  another  large  group  obviously  inspired  by  the  same 
original,  but  less  speculative,  and  more  playful  in  tone.  To 


THE  PROPHETS 


67 


being  continually  supplemented  by  additions  from 
the  pens  of  men  dissatisfied  with  things  as  they 
are,  and  dreaming  of  things  as  they  think  they 
ought  to  be. 

Yet,  influential  as  Plato’s  Republic  has  been 
upon  literature,  its  effect  upon  the  thought  of 
the  modern  world  is  negligible  in  comparison  to 
that  exerted  by  Ezekiel’s  holy  state,  for  the  lat¬ 
ter  is  the  source  of  those  ideals  of  Christendom 
associated  with  the  phrase  “  the  kingdom  of 
God.”  101  There  can  be  no  question  that  it  is 
to  him  that  the  world  owes  the  first  detailed  plan 
of  a  theocracy  —  the  design  of  a  state  in  which 
God  is  the  supreme  ruler  exercising  his  authority 
through  the  priests  or  ministers.  It  is  an  ideal 
that  has  appeared  repeatedly  in  human  history 
—  in  the  rule  of  the  Popes  in  the  Middle  Ages, 

the  latter  class  belong  Barclay’s  Argents ,  Bishop  Francis 
Goodwin’s  Man  in  the  Moon,  Bishop  John  Wilkin’s  Discovery 
of  a  World  in  the  Moon,  Swift’s  Gulliver’s  Travels,  Paltock’s 
Peter  Wilkins,  and  Lytton’s  Coming  Race.  A  fairly  com¬ 
plete  bibliography  may  be  found  in  the  Nova  Solyma,  edited 
by  Rev  Walter  Bagley,  Lond.,  1902,  Vol.  II,  pp.  361  if. 
Probably  the  most  complete  discussion  of  the  whole  subject 
is  to  be  found  in  the  Geschichte  des  Antiken  Kommunismus 
und  Sozialismus,  by  Dr.  Robert  Pohlman,  professor  of 
ancient  history  in  the  University  of  Erlangen,  two  volumes, 
Munich,  1901.  Many  of  the  more  playful  utopias  are  in¬ 
cluded  in  Voyages  Imaginaires,  Songes,  Visions,  et  Romans 
Cabalistiques,  37  volumes,  Paris,  1787. 

ioi  See  Cheyne,  Jewish  Religious  Life  dfter  the  Exile, 
pp.  80  ff ;  Montefiore,  The  Religion  of  the  Ancient  Hebrews 
(Hibbert  Lectures,  1892),  pp.  321  ff;  Skinner,  “Ezekiel” 
( Expositor’s  Bible);  Cornill,  The  Prophets  of  Israel,  p.  123; 
Kraetzschmar,  Hand-Kommentar  zum  Alien  Testament. 


68  OUR  MODERN  DEBT  TO  ISRAEL 


and  in  the  Puritan  sects  of  the  seventeenth  cen¬ 
tury,  like  the  Fifth  Monarchy  Men  of  the  period 
of  the  Commonwealth  in  England.  Indeed  the 
Puritan  Commonwealth  itself  was  in  part  an 
attempt  to  realize  the  ancient  hope  of  Israel  of 
a  kingdom  of  the  saints,  a  kingdom  of  God  on 
earth.  Such  attempts  have  invariably  failed,  as 
the  Puritan  kingdom  of  the  saints  failed  when 
the  return  of  the  Stuarts  caused  it  to  pass  like 
a  dream  away,  and  as  such  schemes  must  always 
fail  so  long  as  human  nature  is  what  it  is.  For 
the  realization  of  Ezekiel’s  dream  there  is  required 
such  a  citizenship  as  he  assumed  of  men  on  whom 
God  has  bestowed  a  new  heart  and  a  new  mind, 
who  sin  only  unawares,  and  on  whom,  therefore, 
no  punishment  save  an  ecclesiastical  penance  need 
ever  be  imposed. 

Though,  of  course,  there  is  no  connection  be¬ 
tween  Plato’s  Republic  and  Ezekiel’s  holy  state, 
there  is,  broadly  speaking,  a  remarkable  resem¬ 
blance  between  them.  Though  it  is  to  Ezekiel 
and  not  to  Plato  that  the  world  owes  the  long 
deferred  hope  of  a  kingdom  of  God  on  earth, 
such  a  hope  was  not  peculiar  to  Ezekiel,  but 
was  Plato’s  also.  His  city  of  the  perfect  is, 
like  Ezekiel’s,  a  civitas  del.  It  is  a  celestial 
commonwealth,  a  Trapdaeiy  p,a  h  ovpavw  10 2,  he  calls 
it,  a  likeness  of  a  celestial  city.  And  the  object 
of  its  corporate  life  is  to  furnish  to  every  citizen 
the  maximum  of  opportunity  to  grow  God-like. 

102  Rep.  592. 


THE  PROPHETS 


69 


To  Plato,  the  crowning  glory  of  human  life,  the 
process  by  which  our  mortal  nature  puts  on  im¬ 
mortality,  is  by  becoming  like  to  God,  o/*otw<r«  r<3 
0e(o.  And  such  an  ideal  in  its  political  application 
means  the  establishment  of  a  kingdom  of  God  on 
earth  —  a  kingdom  wherein  dwelleth  righteous¬ 
ness,  ev  ots  SLKauoovvr]  KaroiKet.103 

It  is  this  transcendentalism,  common  to  Ezekiel 
and  Plato,  this  faculty  of  making  us 

.  .  .  breathe  in  worlds 
To  which  the  heaven  of  heavens  is  but  a  veil, 

that  is  responsible  for  a  further  resemblance  be¬ 
tween  the  two  commonwealths.  Both  are  ideal 
pictures,  impossible  of  realization,  and  were  so  re¬ 
garded  by  their  authors.  In  this  respect  they 
differ  from  most  of  the  later  Utopias.  It  is  sig¬ 
nificant  that  most  authors  of  Utopias,  such  as 
More,  Bacon,  and  Campanella,  represent  their 
ideal  commonwealths  as  already  existing,  and  need¬ 
ing  only  to  be  described,  whereas  both  Ezekiel  and 
Plato  present  their  conception  of  a  perfect  state 
as  existent  only  in  thought.  Each  is  content  to 
remain  wholly  an  idealist ;  neither  makes  the 
slightest  claim  to  be  a  practical  politician.  Eze¬ 
kiel’s  vision  of  a  restored  and  happy  Israel  has 
been  called  “  a  sort  of  Messianic  apocalypse, 

103  By  “justice”  Plato  really  means  righteousness.  It  is 
not  a  pale  abstraction,  but  the  root  and  source  of  all  virtue 
—  the  condition  and  the  means  of  growing  like  to  God.  See 
Nettleship,  Lectures  and  Remains,  Vol.  II,  p.  221 ,  and 
Adam,  The  Vitality  of  Platonism,  pp.  66-67. 


70  OUR  MODERN  DEBT  TO  ISRAEL 


an  ideal  picture  of  what  ought  to  come  to 
pass,  intended  to  suggest  broad  lines  of  progress 
rather  than  to  indicate  exact  details.”  104  Pro¬ 
fessor  Cornill  has  pointed  out  105  that  Ezekiel’s 
plan  of  a  theocracy  was  entirely  impracticable,  in 
other  words,  was  possible  only  when  the  Jews  were 
a  conquered  and  subject  people,  governed  by  a  for¬ 
eign  power.  Ezekiel  tells  us  106  that  he  saw  the 
plan  of  the  holy  city  “  in  the  visions  of  God,”  and 
Plato,107  also,  speaks  of  his  city  of  the  perfect  as 
one  that  exists  in  idea  only,  “  for  I  do  not  think,” 
he  adds,  “  that  there  is  such  an  one  anywhere  on 
earth.  In  heaven  .  .  .  there  is  laid  up  a  pattern 
of  such  a  city ;  and  he  who  desires  may  behold 
this,  and  beholding,  may  govern  himself  accord¬ 
ingly.  But  whether  there  really  is,  or  ever  will  be 
such  an  one  is  of  no  importance  to  him ;  for  he  will 
act  according  to  the  laws  of  that  city  and  of  no 
other.”  “  Nothing  actually  existing  in  this 
world,”  says  Professor  Jowitt  in  his  Introduction 
to  The  Dialogues ,  “  at  all  resembles  Plato’s  ideal 
state,  nor  does  he  himself  imagine  that  such  a  state 
is  possible.”  When  asked  how  the  ideal  could  be 
realized,  he  replied  ironically,108  “  When  one  son 
of  a  king  becomes  a  philosopher,”  referring  to  his 
famous  paradox  in  the  Republic ,  “  until  kings  are 
philosophers,  or  philosophers  are  kings,  cities  will 

104  Sanders  and  Kent,  Messages  of  Later  Prophecy,  p.  114. 

105  Prophets  of  Israel,  pp.  123-124. 

loe  Chap.  40:2. 

Rep.  591. 

108  Laws,  Bk.  V. 


THE  PROPHETS 


71 


never  cease  from  ill.”  109  Yet  to  think  of  the 
Republic  as  a  mere  exercise  of  fancy  without  any 
practical  purpose,  is  wholly  to  misunderstand  Plato 
and  his  work.  .  .  .  Plato,  no  less  than  Ezekiel, 
was  trying  to  “  suggest  broad  lines  of  progress,” 
even  though  he  did  not  expect  that  his  own  genera¬ 
tion  would  travel  very  far  along  the  road  he  had 
pointed  out.  Asked  whether  there  is  any  way  of 
making  citizens  believe  in  a  certain  theory,  he 
answered,  “  Not  in  the  present  generation ;  I  do 
not  see  any  way  of  accomplishing  this  ;  but  their 
sons  may  be  made  to  believe,  and  their  sons’  sons, 
and  posterity  after  them.”  110 

In  their  theoretical  construction  of  a  perfect 
state  of  society,  and  in  their  attempt  to  formulate 
the  governing  principles  that  ought  to  be  regnant 
in  that  society,  both  Ezekiel  and  Plato  wholly  ig¬ 
nored  existing  conditions.111  Both  presupposed  a 
change  in  the  spirit  and  temper  of  the  citizens 
who  are  to  form  the  body  politic.  Ezekiel  as¬ 
sumes  that  the  members  of  the  holy  state  will,  at 
its  beginnings,  be  people  upon  whom  God  has  be¬ 
stowed  a  new  heart  and  a  new  mind,  so  that  they 
will  walk  in  the  way  of  His  commandments,  and  ob¬ 
serve  His  laws.  Though  he  does  not  assume  that 
they  have  attained  perfection,  he  does  presuppose 

109  Rep.  501. 

no  Rep.  415. 

in  There  is  a  striking  difference  in  this  respect  between 
Plato  and  Aristotle,  whose  Politics  is  a  practical  discussion 
of  the  best  form  of  government  possible  under  existing  con¬ 
ditions. 


72  OUR  MODERN  DEBT  TO  ISRAEL 


a  citizenship  of  forgiven  and  sanctified  souls,  who 
err,  if  at  all,  only  inadvertently.  There  is  no  mis¬ 
taking  his  meaning:  “  For  I  will  take  you  from 
among  the  nations,  ^nd  gather  you  out  of  all  the 
countries,  and  will  bring  you  into  your  own  land. 
And  I  will  sprinkle  clean  water  upon  you,  and  you 
shall  be  clean  from  all  your  filthiness ;  and  from  all 
your  idols,  will  I  cleanse  you.  A  new  heart  also 
will  I  give  you,  and  a  new  spirit  will  I  put  within 
you,  and  cause  you  to  walk  in  my  statutes,  and  ye 
shall  keep  mine  ordinances,  and  do  them.”  112 
This  purified  citizenship  was  to  be  the  spiritual 
charge,  not  of  a  king,  for  the  function  of  the  king 
was  to  disappear  with  the  removal  of  war,  and  of 
the  need  of  a  supreme  judge,  but  of  a  high-priest 
and  his  subordinate  ministers.  These  were  to  con¬ 
stitute  a  priestly  caste  113  whose  divinely  sanc¬ 
tioned  office  no  earthly  king  could  take  away.  For 
the  preservation  of  their  ritual  purity,  Ezekiel  pro¬ 
vides  most  carefully.  They  are  to  wear  no  wool¬ 
len  garment;  they  must  not  approach  a  corpse, 
unless  it  be  that  of  parent,  child,  brother,  or  un¬ 
married  sister.  On  passing  from  the  inner  to  the 
outer  courts  of  the  Temple,  they  are  to  lay  aside 
their  garments  “  that  they  sanctify  not  the  people 
with  their  garments,”  in  other  words  lest  they  min¬ 
gle  the  sacred  and  the  profane. 

Plato,  also,  assumes  that  the  citizens  of  the  per¬ 
fect  state  are  to  be,  in  Descartes’  famous  phrase, 

ns  Ezek.  36:25-29. 

ns  See  W.  E.  Addis,  Hebrew  Religion,  p.  230  ff. 


THE  PROPHETS 


73 


“  on  the  side  of  the  angels.”  Though  they  are  not 
thought  of  as. having  yet  attained  even  to  the  meas¬ 
urable  sanctification  assumed  by  Ezekiel  as  prelim¬ 
inary  to  the  inauguration  of  his  holy  state,  Plato 
does  represent  them  as  in  a  process  of  becoming 
lovers  of  justice  under  the  leadership  of  philoso¬ 
phers  who  have  themselves  passed  through  a  rigor¬ 
ous  course  of  self-discipline.  Plato  pins  his  faith 
to  the  best  instincts  of  an  ethical  aristocracy,  just 
as  Ezekiel  had  pinned  his  to  the  best  instincts  of 
an  ecclesiastical  aristocracy.  Each  believed  in  the 
collective  sense  of  the  most  cultivated,  most  deli¬ 
cately  perceptive,  most  spiritually-minded  people 
in  the  state.  The  fact  that  in  Ezekiel’s  thought 
such  a  “  remnant  ”  meant  a  priestly  aristocracy 
of  morally  educated  men,  and  that  in  Plato’s 
thought 114  it  meant  an  aristocracy  composed  of 
men  educated  physically,  mentally,  and  morally,  is 
due  merely  to  a  difference  of  racial  ideals. 

But  the  idealism  common  to  Ezekiel  and  Plato 
shows  itself,  not  alone  in  their  evident  belief  in  the 
perfectibility  of  human  nature,  but  is  even  more 
apparent  in  their  formulation  of  the  principles 
that  are  to  govern  the  new  society. 

The  laws  governing  the  holy  state,  as  they 
are  given  in  the  last  nine  chapters  of  Ezekiel, 
are  wrholly  ritual,  and  concern  (a)  the  tem¬ 
ple,115  (b)  the  priests,11?  (c)  the  sacrifice,117  (d) 

Rep.  537-540. 

ns  Ezek.  45:1-8. 

H6  Ezek.  44:4-16. 

H7  Ezek.  42:13;  43:13-27;  44:24,  27;  45:17-46:11. 


74f  OUR  MODERN  DEBT  TO  ISRAEL 


times  and  seasons,  the  Sabbath,  the  new  moons, 
and  the  three  feasts.118  This  very  meager  equip¬ 
ment  of  legislation  was  not,  however,  to  be  the 
only  code  possessed  by  the  holy  state.  Although 
Ezekiel  provides  no  code  of  laws  for  the  guidance 
of  the  civil  life  of  the  community,119  because,  ob¬ 
viously,  with  such  a  citizenship  as  he  presupposes, 
none  was  needed,  he  evidently  does  assume  that  the 
regulations  he  gives  will  be  supplemented  by  those 
embodied  in  the  “  holiness  code  ”  of  Leviticus.120 
Again  and  again,  as  when  he  prescribes  the  laws 
that  are  to  govern  the  life  of  the  priests  in  the  holy 
state,  he  expresses  himself  in  terms  so  nearly  iden¬ 
tical  with  those  of  the  “  holiness  code  ”  as  to  prove 
that  he  not  only  was  familiar  with  it,  but  that  he 
regarded  it  as  an  authoritative  basis  of  moral  and 
religious  life.121 

Plato’s  scheme,  though  less  ecclesiastical  than 
Ezekiel’s,  is  no  less  moral.  Baron  Bunsen  is  said 
to  have  remarked  that  the  Republic  is  not  so  much 

ns  Ezek.  44:24;  45:17— 46:11. 

No  law,  in  the  modern  sense  of  a  body  of  enacted 
rules,  recognized  by  a  community  as  binding,  existed  in 
ancient  Israel.  The  word  the  Hebrews  used  for  law, 
“  torah,”  meant  instruction,  guidance,  direction.  It  was  a 
word  of  far  wider  application  than  our  word  “  law,”  for  it 
included  both  oral  and  written  instruction,  and  was  a  general 
rule  of  life. 

120  Leviticus,  chapters  17-26. 

121  For  a  full  list  of  these  correspondences,  see  Driver, 
Introduction  to  the  Literature  of  the  Old  Testament,  pp. 
146,  147.  These  are  so  numerous  as  to  have  led  some  to 
believe  that  Ezekiel  was  himself  the  author  of  the  “holiness 
code.” 


THE  PROPHETS 


75 


a  state  as  a  church,  or  at  least,  a  state  and  a 
church,  and  that  the  church  is  the  superior  and 
dominating  element.  At  all  events,  Plato  recog¬ 
nized  that  no  permanent  social  life  is  possible  ex¬ 
cept  it  be  based  on  morality.  Accordingly,  we 
find  the  necessity  of  justice  between  man  and  man 
proved  in  the  first  of  the  ten  books  into  which  the 
treatise  is  divided. 

And  Plato’s  idea  of  justice  is  as  remote  from 
modern  notions  as  Ezekiel’s.  It  is  not  embodied 
in  a  concrete  system  of  law.  Indeed  Plato’s  aver¬ 
sion  to  law  is  a  constant  and  well  recognized  fea¬ 
ture  of  his  political  thought.122  It  is  not  surpris¬ 
ing,  therefore,  to  find  Plato  in  the  Republic  con¬ 
sidering  the  state  as  an  ethical  society,  and  its  life 
as  a  moral  life.  The  corporate  life  of  the  state 
he  does  not  think  of,  any  more  than  Ezekiel  did,  as 
based  on  a  conception  of  rights,  nor  does  he  con¬ 
ceive  of  justice  as  the  maintenance  or  correlation 
of  the  rights  of  its  citizens.  Impressed  as  the  He¬ 
brews  had  been,  with  the  truth  that  only  the  law 
written  in  the  heart  is  really  binding,123  he  would 
have  the  ruler  as  unfettered  in  his  action  as  an  art¬ 
ist  in  his  creation.  Consequently,  both  ruler  and 
citizen  are  amenable  to  only  one  law  —  the  law  of 
justice.  And  justice  is  the  will  to  concentrate 
on  one’s  own  sphere  of  duty  (to  avrov  TTparreLv)  124 

122  See  Barker,  Political  Thought  of  Plato  and  Aristotle, 

p.  118. 

123  See  Psalm  19. 

124  See  Republic  (433),  “  You  will  remember  the  original 
principle  of  which  we  spoke  at  the  foundation  of  the  state, 


76  OUR  MODERN  DEBT  TO  ISRAEL 


and  not  to  meddle  with  another’s  sphere.  Justice 
does  not  reside,  therefore,  in  an  external  code, 
but  in  the  heart  of  every  member  of  the  body  pol¬ 
itic  who  does  his  duty  in  his  appointed  place.  In 
other  words,  the  justice  of  the  state  is  based  upon 
the  citizen’s  sense  of  duty.  Nor  is  this  sense  of 
duty  a  mere  lumen  siccwm ,  a  dry  light  of  reason. 
It  is  inspired  by  the  same  inward  principle  that 
Ezekiel  thought  of  as  regnant  in  the  hearts  of  the 
citizens  of  the  holy  city  —  the  sense  of  brother¬ 
hood.  The  three  classes  into  which  he  would  di¬ 
vide  society  —  rulers,  soldiers,  and  workers  —  are 
each  to  be  taught  that  their  country  is  their 
mother,  44  that  they  are,  therefore,  bound  to  ad¬ 
vise  for  her  good,  and  to  defend  her  against  at¬ 
tacks,  and  her  citizens  they  are  to  regard  as  chil¬ 
dren  of  the  earth,  and  their  own  brothers.”  125 
So  long  as  duty,  that  44  stern  daughter  of  the 
voice  of  God,”  speaks  in  the  heart  of  each  member 
of  the  community,  both  rulers  and  governed,  the 
legislative  function  of  the  state  wholly  disappears 
in  Plato’s  scheme,  and  only  the  executive  function 
remains.  Even  this  is  confined  to  enforcing  cer¬ 
tain  broad  outlines  of  education.  Ezekiel  had 
placed  implicit  confidence  in  a  44  holy  ”  priest¬ 
hood  ;  Plato  relied  in  turn  upon  an  intelligent 
board  of  education.  The  problem  of  Ezekiel’s 
state  was  to  make  Jerusalem  so  44  holy  ”  a  city 

that  every  man  .  .  .  should  practice  one  thing  only,  that 
being  the  thing  to  which  his  nature  was  most  perfectly 
adapted;  now  justice  is  either  this,  or  a  part  of  this.” 

125  Republic ,  414. 


THE  PROPHETS 


77 


that  Jehovah  would  feel  at  home  there;  the  prob¬ 
lem  of  Plato’s  state  was  to  carry  out  unchanged 
the  scheme  of  education  laid  down  by  its  founder. 

Education,  according  to  the  Platonic  ideal,  had 
the  same  ultimate  goal  as  Hebrew  education  — 
namely,  the  knowledge  of  God.  Again  and  again 
did  the  Hebrew  wise-men  formulate  their  belief 
that  growth  in  wisdom  meant  a  knowledge  of 
God’s  works  and  ways  here  on  the  earth,  and  the 
turning  of  that  knowledge  to  practical  account. 
To  the  Hebrew  wise-man  the  beginning  and  end  of 
wisdom  was  the  fear  of  the  Lord,  and  to  depart 
from  evil  was  understanding.120  That  is,  the  He¬ 
brew  ideal  of  education  was  an  ethical  ideal,  and 
its  ultimate  goal  was  righteousness  of  life.127  No 
less  ethical  was  the  Platonic  scheme  of  education, 
for  its  purpose  is  the  knowledge  of  God,  and  its 
consummation  is  the  growing  like  to  Him  — o/xoiWis 
Be a>  Kara  to  Svvarov  dv6pe)7T(o.128 

To  Plato,  no  less  than  to  the  Hebrew  sage,  edu¬ 
cation  meant  a  growth  in  righteousness.  Speak¬ 
ing  of  Plato’s  scheme  of  education,  Barker 
says :  129  “  It  is  to  gain  the  master-key  of  conduct 
and  action,  since  all  right  conduct  and  proper 

126  Prov.  1 :7. 

127  Pictures  illustrative  of  the  Hebrew  ideal  of  the  per¬ 
fectly  educated  man  and  woman  are  found  in  Job.  31,  Prov. 
31  and  in  several  of  the  Psalms. 

128  See  Adam,  The  Vitality  of  Platonism,  p.  33;  Barker, 
Political  Thought  of  Plato  and  Aristotle,  pp.  125-127;  Net- 
tleship,  Lectures  on  the  Republic  of  Plato,  pp.  217  ff;  and 
Pater,  Plato  and  Platonism,  pp.  238-240. 

129  Political  Thought  of  Plato  and  Aristotle,  p.  127. 


78  OUR  MODERN  DEBT  TO  ISRAEL 


action  will  be  conformed  and  directed  to  the  end 
which  is  the  end  of  all  things.  This  is  the  real 
sense  in  which  virtue  is  knowledge.  If  this  con¬ 
ception  be  personalized,  we  may  say  that  the  end  of 
education  is  the  realization  of  God:  it  is  knowing 
that  all  things  are  one  in  him,  and  doing  in  the 
light  of  that  knowledge.” 

It  is  in  the  seventh  book  of  the  Republic  130  that 
Plato  outlines  most  clearly  the  stages  of  this 
growth  in  a  44  knowledge  which  shows  the  eternal 
nature  in  which  is  no  variableness.”  One  after 
another,  he  here  enumerates  the  virtues  that  will 
be  added,  and  the  vices  that  will,  like  soiled  gar¬ 
ments,  be  laid  aside  till  finally  the  learner  becomes 
fitted  44  to  raise  the  eye  of  the  soul  to  the  universal 
light  that  lightens  all  things,  and  behold  the  abso¬ 
lute  good ;  for  that  is  the  pattern  according  to 
which  they  are  to  order  the  state,  and  the  lives  of 
individuals,  and  the  remainder  of  their  own  lives 
also.” 

In  view  of  the  fact  that  Ezekiel’s  holy  state  pre¬ 
ceded  Plato’s  by  nearly  two  centuries,  a  protest 
against  designating  the  latter  as  the  first  book  of 
its  kind  seems  entirely  justifiable.  The  reasona¬ 
bleness  of  such  a  protest  becomes  the  more  ap¬ 
parent  upon  a  brief  comparison  of  the  two  books, 
which  reveals  certain  fundamental  resemblances 
between  the  two  authors  and  their  work.  We  find 
that  both  Ezekiel  and  Plato  were  transcendental- 
ists,  that  they  ignored  existing  conditions,  that 
130  485  ff. 


THE  PROPHETS 


79 


they  believed  in  the  perfectability  of  the  social  or¬ 
ganism  through  an  educated  aristocracy.  Nor  do 
we  find  that  the  resemblance  ends  with  the  idealism 
of  the  two  authors.  Each  distrusted  the  efficacy 
of  external  law  as  a  means  of  social  betterment, 
and  each  substituted  a.  moral  principle,  to  be  writ¬ 
ten,  not  on  tables  of  stone,  nor  in  the  pages  of  a 
statute  book,  but  in  the  fleshly  tables  of  the  heart 
of  each  loyal  citizen.  The  Hebrew  citizen  was  to 
be  loyal  to  the  ideal  of  holiness ;  the  Greek,  to  the 
ideal  of  duty ;  and  each,  in  his  relations  with  his 
fellows,  to  the  ideal  of  brotherhood. 

The  period  of  the  Exile,  when  political  questions, 
and  the  practical  problems  of  social  life  no  longer 
demanded  attention,  afforded  an  opportunity,  not 
only  for  the  theoretical  construction  of  an  ideal 
commonwealth  such  as  Ezekiel’s,  but  also  for  an¬ 
swering  some  of  the  questions  which  the  ruin  of 
the  Hebrew  state  inevitably  suggested.  Of  these  the 
most  insistent  was  the  question,  “  For  what  pur¬ 
pose  was  Israel  chosen?  Wliat  was  the  real  voca- 
tion  of  the  race?  ”  To  the  answering  of  this  ques¬ 
tion,  the  author  of  the  last  twenty-seven  chapters 
of  Isaiah  addressed  himself.  His  name  we  do  not 
know.  He  is  variously  designated  as  “  the  Sec- 
ond-Isaiah,”  “  Deutero-Isaiah,”  or  as  “  the  Great 
Unknown.”  Whoever  he  was,  he  discovered  a 
truth  of  transcendent  importance.  In  the  attempt 
to  answer  the  question,  “  What  is  the  vocation  of 
Israel?  ”  he  made  known  the  truth  that  God’s  high¬ 
est  call  is  the  call  to  service.  The  calling  of  Is- 


80  OUR  MODERN  DEBT  TO  ISRAEL 


rael,  as  he  saw  it,  was  to  become  to  the  world  what 
the  prophet  was  to  Israel  —  God’s  representative 
and  witness,  elect  for  the  sake  of  mankind.  In 
this  answer,  the  Second-Isaiah  found  an  explana¬ 
tion  of  the  enigmatical  history  of  Israel.  To  the 
end  that  Israel  might  fulfil  its  mission  to  give  and 
not  to  receive,  Israel  had  been  trained  in  the  hard 
school  of  adversity.  All  its  sufferings  have  been 
borne  in  its  vocation  as  44  Servant  of  Jehovah.” 

In  the  successive  passages  in  which  the  prophet 
portrays  the  44  Servant  of  Jehovah,”  made  perfect 
through  suffering,  and  so  prepared  to  redeem  the 
world,  he  develops  the  ideal  of  service  which  he 
wished  to  set  before  the  race.  That  Israel,  ideal¬ 
ized  and  personified,  is  represented  by  the  44  Serv¬ 
ant  of  Jehovah,”  there  can  be  no  question.  He 
says  (and  here  Jehovah  addresses  Israel)  :  44  But 

thou,  Israel,  my  servant,  Jacob  whom  I  have  chosen 
the  seed  of  Abraham  my  friend ;  thou  whom  I  have 
taken  hold  of  from  the  ends  of  the  earth,  and  called 
thee  from  the  corners  thereof,  and  said  unto  thee, 
Thou  art  my  servant,  I  have  chosen  thee  and  not 
cast  thee  away ;  fear  thou  not,  for  I  am  with  thee ; 
be  not  dismayed,  for  I  am  thy  God:  ...”  131  A 
little  later  in  the  dialogue,132  the  44  Servant  ” 
speaks,  saying:  44  And  now  saith  the  Lord  that 
formed  me  from  the  womb  to  be  his  servant,  to 
bring  Jacob  again  to  him,  and  that  Israel  be  gath¬ 
ered  unto  him :  .  .  .  yea,  he  saith,  It  is  too  light 
a  thing  that  thou  shouldest  be  my  servant  to  raise 

131  Is.  41 :8  ff.  132  Ig.  49:5  ff. 


THE  PROPHETS 


81 


up  the  tribes  of  J acob,  and  to  restore  the  preserved 
of  Israel:  I  will  also  give  thee  for  a  light  to  the 
Gentiles,  that  thou  mayest  be  my  salvation  unto 
the  ends  of  the  earth.”  It  is  an  ideal  that  Israel 
never  consciously  realized ;  and  yet,  as  Tennyson 
says,  God  fulfills  Himself  in  many  ways.  Though 
Israel  never  attained  to  the  measure  of  the  stature 
of  the  fullness  of  the  Christ-like  ideal  set  forth  by 
the  unknown  prophet  of  the  Exile,  the  race  has, 
albeit  unwillingly,  become  in  a  very  real  sense 
God’s  interpreter  to  the  world.  To  Israel  it  was 
given  to 

.  .  .  see  and  tell 
Of  things  invisible  to  mortal  sight.133 

to  Israel  it  was  given 

...  to  assert  eternal  Providence, 

And  justify  the  ways  of  God  to  men.134 

In  Zechariah’s  dreams  we  note  the  full  develop¬ 
ment  of  the  tendency  to  apocalypse,  which  has  been 
noted  as  one  of  the  characteristics  of  the  post- 
Exilic  literature.  Here  we  find  eight  apocalyptic 
visions,  which,  like  dissolving  views,  or  the  gor¬ 
geous  figures  in  a  kaleidoscope,  change  and  merge 
insensibly  into  new  combinations  of  oriental  sym¬ 
bolism.  Now  the  symbols  are  suggested  by  the 
elaborate  system  of  postal  communication  of  the 
Persian  empire,  the  most  complete  in  the  ancient 

133  Paradise  Lost,  III.  11.  54,  55. 

134  Ibid.  I.  11.  25,  26. 


82  OUR  MODERN  DEBT  TO  ISRAEL 


world;  now  by  the  war-chariots  of  Persia,  which 
are  employed  to  symbolize  Jehovah’s  wrath  against 
the  nations  of  the  earth.  Together  these  visions 
convey  a  message  of  hope  for  Jerusalem ;  its  tem¬ 
ple  is  to  be  restored,  its  enemies  destroyed,  its  ex¬ 
iles  returned,  its  sin  forgiven,  its  wickedness  re¬ 
moved,  and  God’s  spirit  is  to  flow  through  priest 
and  prince  of  the  Davidic  line.  But,  though  the 
message  of  Zachariah  may  seem  to  be  one  calcu¬ 
lated  to  meet  local  and  temporary  conditions,  it 
is  really  timeless  and  universal.  In  the  vision  of 
the  golden  candlestick,130  the  prophet  expressed  a 
spiritual  truth,  which,  though  the  world  has  been 
slow  to  learn  it,  though  indeed  it  has  not  yet  ac¬ 
cepted  it,  is  destined  to  become  more  and  more  the 
guiding  principle  of  the  world’s  life,  64  Not  by 
might,  nor  by  power,  but  by  my  spirit,  saith  the 
Lord  of  Hosts.”  It  is  a  truth  of  which  the  whole 
history  of  Israel  is  an  illustration,  and  one  which 
is  illustrated  in  every  instance  where  God  has 
chosen  the  weak  things  of  the  earth  to  confound 
the  mighty,  and  the  things  that  are  not  to  bring 
to  naught  the  things  that  are. 

In  the  book  of  Malachi  we  find  the  beginning  of 
a  respect  for  heathen  religion  which  was  to  appear 
later  in  a  more  fully  developed  form  in  the  book 
of  Jonah.  Most  emphatically  does  this  nameless 
prophet  136  contrast  the  neglect  of  God  by  Israel 

135  Zech.  4.  This  is  the  vision  of  the  seven-branched 
golden  candlestick  of  the  temple,  its  lamps  fed  by  the  two 
olive  trees,  standing,  one  on  either  side  of  it. 

136  The  book  is  anonymous.  The  word  “  Malachi  ”  is  not 


THE  PROPHETS 


83 


with  the  reverence  paid  to  Him  among  the  heathen. 
“  For  from  the  rising  of  the  sun  even  unto  the  go¬ 
ing  down  of  the  same  my  name  is  great  among  the 
Gentiles ;  and  in  every  place  incense  is  offered  unto 
my  name,  and  a  pure  offering,  for  my  name  is 
great  among  the  Gentiles,  saith  Jehovah  of  Hosts.” 
The  lesson  of  the  book  is  “  that  these  negligent 
priests  were  to  know  that  Jehovah  was  not,  as  they 
might  fancy,  dependent  upon  them,  and  upon  the 
Temple  at  Jerusalem  for  acceptable  service,  for 
the  world  was  His  Temple,  and  even  the  heathen 
were  learning  to  fear  Him.”  137  In  its  recognition 
that  the  world  was  God’s  temple,  the  passage  seems 
like  an  anticipation  of  the  statement  by  Israel’s 
greatest  teacher,  made  to  the  woman  of  Samaria, 
“  Believe  me,  the  hour  cometh,  when  neither  in  this 
mountain,  nor  in  Jerusalem,  shall  ye  worship  the 
Father.  .  .  .  But  the  hour  cometh,  and  now  is, 
when  the  true  worshipers  shall  worship  the  Father 
in  spirit  and  truth.”  138  That  such  an  anticipa¬ 
tion,  based  upon  a  generous,  even  catholic,  recog¬ 
nition  of  the  purity  of  heathen  sacrifices,  should 
occur  in  this  book,1  which  lays  such  stress  on  the 
necessity  of  a  pure  sacrifice,  and  in  general,  upon 
the  temple  ritual,  is  nothing  less  than  amazing. 

The  century  following  350  b.  c.  was  a  period  of 
great  humiliation  and  suffering  to  the  Jewish  com- 

a  proper  name,  but  is  the  word  translated  “  my  messenger  ” 
in  chap.  3:1. 

137  Mai.  1:11.  Kirkpatrick,  The  Doctrine  of  the  Prophets, 
p.  509. 

138  John  4:21-23. 


84  OUR  MODERN  DEBT  TO  ISRAEL 


munity.  Naturally  it  left  its  impress  upon  the 
character  of  the  Jewish  race.  Its  most  deplora¬ 
ble  effect  was  in  dampening  the  missionary  ardor 
which  had  been  awakened  by  the  message  of  the 
Second-Isaiah.  Instead  of  being  filled  with  a 
fervid  zeal  to  become  Jehovah’s  witnesses  to  the 
nations,  they  became  filled  with  a  no  less  fervid 
desire  to  see  the  Gentiles  destroyed.  Indeed,  the 
overthroAv  of  the  heathen  nations  came  to  seem  a 
necessary  preliminary  to  the  establishment  of  Je¬ 
hovah’s  kingdom  of  righteousness  on  earth.139 

As  a  protest  against  such  narrow  intolerance 
the  book  of  Jonah  was  written  to  show  that  God’s 
purposes  of  grace  are  not  limited  to  Israel  alone ; 
but  that,  conditional  upon  repentance,  they  include 
the  heathen  as  well.  Jonah  appears  as  the  ex¬ 
ponent  of  the  popular  Israelitish  creed.  Reluc¬ 
tant  to  undertake  a  mission  to  the  hated  enemies 
of  Israel,  angry  at  the  non-fulfillment  of  his  pre¬ 
diction  of  ruin  for  Nineveh,  Jonah  is  the  personi¬ 
fication  of  later  Judaism.  That  in  the  conscious 
design  of  the  author  of  the  book  he  represents  the 
Jewish  race  is  more  than  probable;  it  amounts  to  a 
certainty.  In  such  a  personification,  the  author 
presented  no  new  idea.  Jeremiah,  in  referring  to 
the  Exile,  had  said :  “  Nebuchadrezzar  the  king  of 
Babylon  hath  devoured  me,  ...  he  hath  swal¬ 
lowed  me  up  like  a  dragon,  he  hath  filled  his  maw 
with  my  delicates ;  he  hath  cast  me  out.  .  .  .  And 
I  will  do  judgment  upon  Bel  in  Babylon,  and  I 
139  See,  for  example,  Joel  3. 


THE  PROPHETS 


85 


will  bring  forth  out  of  his  mouth  that  which  he 
hath  swallowed  up ;  .  .  .”  140  Jonah,  then,  is 
symbolic  of  Israel,  divinely  commissioned  to  utter 
to  the  Gentile  world  the  truths  that  should  make 
Jehovah’s  temple  44  a  house  of  prayer  unto  all  na¬ 
tions.”  This  mission  they  had  refused,  prefer¬ 
ring  to  embark  upon  the  perilous  sea  of  oriental 
politics,  which  finally  engulfed  them.  Yet  they 
could  not  evade  their  duty,  for  44  the  sea  is  his  and 
he  made  it.”  And  so  they  were  swallowed  up  by 
the  world  power,  Assyria,  only  to  be  cast  forth 
again,  and  recommissioned  as  Jehovah’s  witnesses 
to  heathendom.  Still  the  nation,  though  no  longer 
disobedient,  was  in  need  of  discipline.  They 
needed  to  realize  more  fully  the  great  prophetic 
truths  —  that  God’s  threats  are  conditional,  that 
national  intolerance  was  grotesquely  incongruous 
with  Jehovah’s  all-embracing  pity,  which  makes 
Him  ask,  44  Should  not  I  have  pity  on  Nineveh, 
that  great  city,  wherein  are  more  than  six  score 
thousand  persons  that  cannot  discern  between 
their  right  hand  and  their  left  hand ;  and  also 
much  cattle?  ”  141 

44  With  this  question,”  says  Cornill,142  44  closes 
the  last  book  of  the  prophetic  literature  of  Israel. 
More  simply,  as  something  quite  evident,  and  there¬ 
fore  more  sublimely  and  touchingly,  the  truth  was 
never  spoken  in  the  Old  Testament,  that  God,  as 

140  Jer.  51:34,  44. 

141  Jonah  4:11. 

142  Prophets  of  Israel,  p.  173. 


86  OUR  MODERN  DEBT  TO  ISRAEL 


Creator  of  the  whole  earth,  must  also  be  the  God 
and  father  of  the  entire  world,  in  whose  loving, 
kind,  and  fatherly  heart  all  men  are  equal,  before 
whom  is  no  difference  of  nation  and  confession,  but 
only  men,  whom  He  has  created  in  his  own  image. 
Here  Hosea  and  Jeremiah  live  anew.  The  un¬ 
known  author  of  the  Book  of  Jonah  stretches  forth 
his  hand  to  these  master  hearts  and  intellects.  In 
the  celestial  harmony  of  the  infinite  Godly  love 
and  of  the  infinite  Godly  pity,  the  Israelitic  proph¬ 
ecy  rings  out  as  the  most  costly  bequest  of  Israel 
to  the  whole  world.” 


CHAPTER  III 


THE  INFLUENCE  OF  THE  PROPHETS 
UPON  MODERN  THOUGHT 

Of  the  three  classes  of  Israel’s  leaders,  the 
strongest  influence  was  undoubtedly  exerted  by  the 
prophets.  Their  ideas  are  an  integral  part  of  our 
thought,  and  still  are,  as  they  have  always  been, 
powerful  factors  in  all  attempts  of  Christianity 
to  influence  social  and  political  life.  Of  the  edu¬ 
cative  forces  for  the  development  of  democracy 
and  social  justice,  that  of  the  prophets  has  unques¬ 
tionably  been  the  greatest.  Truly  has  our  own 
Emerson  said  of  them  : 

The  word  unto  the  prophets  spoken 
Was  writ  on  tables  yet  unbroken; 

The  word  by  seers  or  sibyls  told, 

In  groves  of  oak  or  fanes  of  gold, 

Still  floats  upon  the  morning  wind, 

Still  whispers  to  the  willing  mind.1 

Whether  more  “  willing  ”  or  not,  men’s  minds  to¬ 
day  are  certainly  more  open  than  they  have  been 
formerly  to  the  prophetic  message. 

And  it  is  a  vital  one,  for  it  concerns  the  coming 
of  the  kingdom  of  God  —  a  kingdom  wherein  dwpll- 

i  “  The  Problem,”  st.  6. 


87 


88  OUR  MODERN  DEBT  TO  ISRAEL 


eth  righteousness.  They  were  hoping  for  a  better 
social  order.  In  our  day,  also,  men  are  seeking 
more  earnestly  than  ever  before  to  find  out  by  what 
system  of  social  evolution  the  betterment  of  our 
social  and  economic  order  may  be  achieved.  Vari¬ 
ous  plans  are  being  strenuously  advocated  —  from 
the  social  revolution  of  certain  radical  reformers, 
to  the  non-militant  and  innocuous  suggestions  of 
those  who  would  inaugurate  a  campaign  of  educa¬ 
tion  for  the  substitution  of  the  principle  of  co¬ 
operation  for  the  older  economic  principle  of  com¬ 
petition.2  Amid  the  babel  of  conflicting  voices, 
men  who  recognize  the  kinship  of  the  prophets’ 
aims  with  ours  are  respectfully  considering  the 
methods  they  advocated  for  improving  the  social 
order.  The  prophets  did  not  believe  the  world 
could  be  saved  except  through  religion.  But  they 
unsparingly  condemned  those  who  failed  to  har¬ 
monize  religion  in  its  ceremonial  aspect  with  re¬ 
ligion  in  its  social  implications.  Amos,  the  first 
of  the  “  writing  prophets,”  announced  amid  the 
revels  of  the  feast  at  Bethel  the  impending  fall  of 
the  Northern  Kingdom;  and  declared  that  this 
would  be  the  result,  not  of  a  lack  of  ceremonial 
godliness,  but  of  social  righteousness.  After  de¬ 
nouncing  impartially  the  political  crimes  of  all  the 
states  of  Palestine,  Amos  utters  a  more  detailed 
denunciation  of  the  social  evils  of  Israel. 

2  See,  for  example,  J.  W.  Petavel  in  The  Coming  Triumph 
of  Christian  Civilization.  He  advocates  the  establishment  of 
educational  colonies,  organized  as  cooperative  small-holding 
societies,  which  should  teach  industrial  cooperation. 


INFLUENCE  OF  THE  PROPHETS  89 


“  Thus  saith  the  Lord :  For  three  transgressions 
of  Israel,  yea,  for  four,  I  will  not  turn  away  the 
punishment  thereof ;  because  they  have  sold  the 
righteous  for  silver,  and  the  needy  for  a  pair  of 
shoes :  that  pant  after  the  dust  of  the  earth  on  the 
head  of  the  poor,  and  turn  aside  the  way  of  the 
meek:  and  a  man  and  his  father  will  go  unto  the 
same  maid,  to  profane  my  holy  name :  and  they 
lay  themselves  down  beside  every  altar  upon  clothes 
taken  in  pledge,  and  in  the  house  of  their  God  they 
drink  the  wine  of  such  as  have  been  fined.”  3  The 
only  hope  of  averting  the  ruin  that  Israel’s  social 
sin  involves  is,  he  insists,  in  the  inauguration  of  a 
new  era  of  social  justice.  “  Seek  good,  and  not 
evil,  that  ye  may  live ;  and  so  the  Lord,  the  God  of 
hosts  shall  be  with  you,  as  ye  say.  Hate  the  evil, 
and  love  the  good,  and  establish  judgment  in  the 
gate:  it  may  be  that  the  Lord,  the  God  of  hosts, 
will  be  gracious  unto  the  remnant  of  Joseph.”  4 

The  prophets  who  succeeded  Amos  were  not  less 
insistent  than  he  had  been  upon  the  idea  that  re¬ 
ligious  morality  is  the  only  thing  that  God  cares 
about.  They,  like  him,  stressed  in  the  religious 
life,  not  the  creed  and  ceremonial,  but  righteous 
living,  without  which  religion  is  as  nothing.  “  I 
desire  goodness  and  not  sacrifice,”  said  Hosea,5 
and  Jesus  liked  to  quote  the  words.6  The  book  of 

s  Amos  2 :6-8. 

4  Amos  5 :14,  15. 

5  Hosea  6:6. 

6  Jesus  quotes  them  twice  —  Matt.  9:13,  and  Matt.  12:7. 


90  OUR  MODERN  DEBT  TO  ISRAEL 


Isaiah  begins  with  a  contemptuous  description  of 
the  means  in  vogue  with  the  ritualists  of  his  day 
for  averting  God’s  wrath.  The  Temple  courts,  he 
says,  are  trampled  with  the  feet  of  deluded  wor¬ 
shippers,  who  fancy  God  will  be  appeased  by  the 
reek  of  incense  used  to  conceal  the  stench  of  the 
burning  flesh  of  slaughtered  beasts.  44  I  cannot 
away  with  iniquity  and  the  solemn  meeting.  Your 
new  moons  and  your  appointed  feasts  my  soul  hat- 
eth:  they  are  a  trouble  unto  me;  I  am  weary  to 
bear  them.  And  when  ye  spread  forth  your  hands, 
I  will  hide  mine  eyes  from  you:  yea,  when  ye  make 
many  prayers,  I  will  not  hear:  your  hands  are  full 
of  blood.  Wash  you,  make  you  clean;  put  away 
the  evil  of  your  doings  from  before  mine  eyes ; 
cease  to  do  evil:  learn  to  do  well;  seek  judgment, 
relieve  the  oppressed,  judge  the  fatherless,  plead 
for  the  widow.”  7  Micah  also,  denies  that  God 
44  will  be  pleased  with  thousands  of  rams,  or  with 
ten  thousands  of  rivers  of  oil.  .  .  .  He  hath  shewed 
thee,  O  man,  what  is  good;  and  what  doth  Jehovah 
require  of  thee,  but  to  do  justly,  and  to  love  kind¬ 
ness,  and  to  walk  humbly  with  thy  God?  ”  8 

Jeremiah,  also,  regarded  the  social  duties  of  man 
as  matters  of  supreme  religious  importance. 
Most  emphatic  is  his  assertion  that  social  justice 
is  of  more  account  than  Temple  worship.  44  Thus 
saith  the  Lord  of  hosts,”  he  says,  44  Amend  your 
ways  and  your  doings,  and  I  will  cause  you  to 

7  Is.  1 :13-17. 

8  Micah  6:6-8.  Cf.  Psalm  40:6;  50:8-15;  51:16,  17. 


INFLUENCE  OF  THE  PROPHETS  91 


dwell  in  this  place.  Trust  ye  not  in  lying  words 
saying,  The  temple  of  the  Lord,  the  temple  of  the 
Lord,  the  temple  of  the  Lord  are  these.  For  if  ye 
thoroughly  amend  your  ways  and  your  doings ;  if 
ye  thoroughly  execute  justice  between  a  man  and 
his  neighbor ;  if  ye  oppress  not  the  stranger,  the 
fatherless  and  the  widow,  and  shed  not  innocent 
blood  in  this  place,  neither  walk  after  other  gods 
to  your  hurt :  then  wrill  I  cause  you  to  dwell  in  this 
place,  in  the  land  that  I  gave  to  your  fathers,  from 
of  old  even  for  evermore.”  9  Following  the  exam¬ 
ple  of  the  earlier  prophets,  Ezekiel,  the  priest- 
prophet  of  the  Exile,  whom  we  should  expect  to  be 
less  radical  than  his  predecessors,  indicates  not  less 
clearly  than  they  had  done  the  social  importance 
of  religion,  and  insists  no  less  strenuously  upon 
social  ethics  in  these  words :  10  44  But  if  a  man  be 

just,  and  do  that  which  is  lawful  and  right,  and 
hath  not  eaten  upon  the  mountains  (food  conse¬ 
crated  to  idols),  neither  hath  lifted  up  his  eyes  to 
the  idols  of  the  house  of  Israel,  neither  hath  de¬ 
filed  his  neighbour’s  wife,  .  .  .  and  hath  not 
wronged  any,  but  hath  restored  to  the  debtor  his 
pledge,  hath  spoiled  none  by  violence,  hath  given 
his  bread  to  the  hungry,  and  hath  covered  the 
naked  with  a  garment ;  He  that  hath  not  given 
forth  upon  usury,  neither  hath  taken  any  increase, 
that  hath  withdrawn  his  hand  from  iniquity,  hath 
executed  true  judgment  (justice)  between  man 
and  man,  hath  walked  in  my  statutes  and  hath  kept 
9Jer.  7:3-7.  io  Ezek.  18:5-9. 


92  OUR  MODERN  DEBT  TO  ISRAEL 


my  judgments,  to  deal  truly;  he  is  just,  he  shall 
surely  live,  saith  the  Lord  of  hosts.”  The  preach¬ 
ing  of  the  prophets  never  varied  in  its  insistence 
upon  the  idea  that  religion  is  in  the  first  place  a 
matter  between  man  and  his  Maker,  then  a  matter 
between  man  and  society ;  that  it  must  inspire  men 
to  act  justly  toward  others,  and  that  no  people 
can  be  called  religious  that  does  not  demand  jus¬ 
tice  for  itself  and  do  justly  to  others.  Even  the 
last  of  them,  those  like  Malachi,  who  preached 
when  the  Jewish  religion  had  become  a  book  reli¬ 
gion,  and  Judaism  had  narrowed  into  a  church, 
when  even  the  prophets  had  become  zealous  for 
the  law,  for  the  Temple,  and  its  ritual,  were  by 
no  means  blind  to  the  fact  that  the  national 
church,  with  its  intolerance  and  its  disregard  for 
social  justice,  could  hardly  claim  the  favor  of 
a  holy  God,  who  always  regarded  the  inward  and 
and  spiritual  above  the  outward  and  visible. 
Malachi  denounces  ecclesiasticism  and  formal  ob¬ 
servance  of  a  ceremonial  cult,  and  assures  his 
people  that  God  will  be  a  “  witness  against  the 
sorcerers,  and  against  the  adulterers,  and  against 
the  false  swearers ;  and  against  those  that  oppress 
the  hireling  in  his  wages,  the  widow,  and  the 
fatherless,  and  that  turn  aside  the  stranger  from 
his  right,  and  fear  not  me,  saith  the  Lord  of 
hosts.”  11  There  is  no  reason  to  question  the 
justness  of  the  assertion  of  Professor  George 
Adam  Smith  regarding  the  teaching  of  the 
11  Mai.  3:5. 


INFLUENCE  OF  THE  PROPHETS  93 


prophets,  when  he  says :  12  44  The  student  of  the 

prophets,  as  he  realizes  their  equal  insistence  upon 
the  Word  of  God,  and  upon  the  need  of  strong 
and  just  rulers,  upon  the  religious  and  economic 
rights  of  every  common  citizen,  and  upon  the 
substitution,  for  confidence  in  ritual,  of  the  ethi¬ 
cal  service  of  men,  must  recognize  principles  of 
which  all  social  philosophies  and  systems  since 
constructed  present  only  the  fragments  and  de¬ 
tails.” 

As  the  earliest  exponents  of  the  fundamental 
truth  that  religion  and  ethics  are  inseparable, 
that  the  chief  concern  of  religion  is  development 
of  character,  the  equitable  adjustment  of  human 
relationships,  and  the  conquest  of  poverty  and 
vice ;  and  that  these  concerns  are  pre-requisite 
to  a  realization  of  the  long-deferred  hope  of  the 
kingdom  of  righteousness  on  the  earth,  the 
prophets  made  their  most  vital  contribution  to 
the  most  important  problem  of  our  day.  To  the 
great  majority  of  modern  men  Christianity  seems 
a  debt  they  owe  to  an  institution.  They  identify 
it  with  a  membership  in  some  church.  Religion 
means  to  them  the  praise  and  worship  of  God, 
valuable  for  the  hopes  and  consolations  it  may 
bring  to  them  in  the  hour  of  their  trial,  difficulty, 
and  sorrow.  It  is  still  only  the  fewest  among 
men  who  identify  religion  with  life.  Says  Pro¬ 
fessor  Rauschenbusch :  13  44  Under  the  influence  of 

12  Quoted  by  Keeble,  The  Social  Teachings  of  the  Bible, 
p.  46. 

13  Christianity  and  the  Social  Crisis,  p.  7. 


94  OUR  MODERN  DEBT  TO  ISRAEL 


non-Christians  customs  and  conceptions  Christ¬ 
ianity  early  developed  its  own  ceremonial  system. 
It  is,  of  course,  far  more  refined.  Our  places 
of  worship  have  no  stench  of  blood  and  entrails ; 
our  priests  are  not  expert  butchers.  But  the 
immense  majority  of  people  in  Christendom  have 
holy  places,  where  they  recite  a  sacred  ritual  and 
go  through  sacred  motions.  They  receive  holy 
food  and  submit  to  washings  that  cleanse  from 
sin.  They  have  a  priesthood  with  magic  powers, 
which  offers  a  bloodless  sacrifice.  This  Christian 
ritual  grew  up,  not  as  the  appropriate  and 
aesthetic  expression  of  spiritual  emotions,  but  as 
the  indispensable  means  of  pleasing  and  appeas¬ 
ing  God,  and  of  securing  his  favors,  temporal 
and  eternal,  for  those  who  put  their  hearts  into 
these  processes.  This  Christian  ceremonial  sys¬ 
tem  does  not  differ  essentially  from  that  against 
which  the  prophets  protested ;  with  a  few  verbal 
changes,  their  invectives  would  still  apply.” 

To  men  in  our  age,  confused  in  their  ideas  of 
what  religion  really  is,  and  groping  blindly  for 
a  method  of  hastening  the  coming  of  a  better  day 
for  humanity,  the  message  of  the  prophets  comes 
with  clarifying  power,  affirming  that  religion  is 
to  “  seek  judgment  (justice),  and  relieve  the 
oppressed  ” ;  14  and  that,  until  we  make  society 
religious  in  this  sense,  we  shall  not  realize  our 
ancient  hope  of  the  kingdom  of  God  on  earth, 
which  these  men  promised. 

14  Is.  1 :17. 


CHAPTER  IV 


THE  PRIESTS 

From  time  immemorial,  there  has  been  apparent 
in  Judaism  a  struggle  for  supremacy  between  two 
principles :  the  formalism  of  dogmatic  ritual,  and 
the  direct  religious  sentiment.  Between  the 
idealism  of  the  prophets,  sometimes  half  mystical 
as  in  the  authors  of  the  prophetic  apocalypse, 
and  the  discipline  of  the  law,  upheld  by  the 
priests,  who  were  by  training  and  by  precept 
ritualists,  there  was  perpetual  conflict.  Both 
politically  and  religiously  the  two  classes  were 
diametrically  opposed.  The  prophets  were  radi¬ 
cals  ;  the  priests,  conservatives.  The  one  class  was 
made  up  of  the  opposers,  the  other,  of  the  up¬ 
holders  of  the  established  order  in  church  and 
state. 

Partly  because  they  were  rightly  regarded 
as  the  pillars  of  existing  society,  the  priests  con¬ 
stituted  the  most  influential  class  in  ancient  Is¬ 
rael.  As  representatives  of  the  people  in  public 
worship,  and  as  the  guardians  and  interpreters 
of  the  law,  they  occupied  in  that  ancient  life  a 
social  position  more  prominent  than  that  of  either 
the  prophets  or  the  sages.  This  social  prom¬ 
inence  was  reflected  in  their  dress.  In  the  per- 

95 


96  OUR  MODERN  DEBT  TO  ISRAEL 


formance  of  their  official  duties  they  wore  white 
linen  garments.1  These  consisted,  first,  of  a  sort 
of  trunk-hose  of  fine  linen,  over  which  was  worn 
a  long  linen  vestment  reaching  to  the  feet,  fitting 
closely  to  the  body,  and  confined  just  below  the 
breast  by  a  girdle  of  fine,  white  linen  four  fingers 
broad.  After  being  wound  several  times  around 
the  body,  it  was  tied,  and  the  ends  allowed  to 
hang  to  the  ankles.  Its  whole  length  was  em¬ 
broidered  with  flowers  of  white,  and  scarlet,  and 
purple,  and  blue  —  the  four  colors  of  the  sanc¬ 
tuary.  The  priest  wore,  also,  a  turban  of  white, 
wound  many  times  around  the  head,  and  sewed 
together.  He  wore  no  shoes,  at  least  while  per¬ 
forming  his  sacred  office,  the  putting  off  of  the 
shoes  being  regarded,  as  in  some  Oriental  coun¬ 
tries  to-day,  as  a  necessary  preliminary  to  enter¬ 
ing  a  sacred  place.2 

To  the  holy  place  —  the  space  inside  the  cur¬ 
tain  where  the  altar  stood  —  the  priests  alone 
had  access,  and  there  performed  their  most  impor¬ 
tant  function.  The  essential  idea  in  the  Hebrew 
thought  of  the  priestly  function  was  mediation 
between  God  and  his  people.  As  mediator,  the 
priest’s  highest  duty  was  to  represent  the  people 
officially  in  their  worship  by  offering  for  them 
the  sacrifices,  and,  above  all,  the  incense.3 
Scarcely  less  important  was  his  duty  of  interpret- 

1  Ex.  28:40  ff  and  Josephus,  Ant.  III.  VII.  7. 

2  Ex.  3:5. 

3  Num.  16:40;  18:1-5;  Deut.  33:10. 


THE  PRIESTS 


97 


ing  and  teaching  the  law.4  Subordinate  to 
these  two  functions  were  those  of  communicating 
the  divine  will  by  means  of  the  urim  and  thum- 
mim,  or  sacred  lot ;  5  and  of  blessing  the  people  in 
the  name  of  the  Lord.6 

As  official  representatives  of  the  people  in  pub¬ 
lic  worship,  the  priests  delivered  their  message 
through  certain  symbolic  acts,  mostly  connected 
with  the  sacrifice.  In  doing  so  they  made  use 
of  the  dramatic  method  of  teaching,  as  contrasted 
with  the  hortatory  method  which  they  employed 
as  compilers  and  interpreters  of  the  law.  That 
they  should  have  availed  themselves  of  the  dra¬ 
matic  method  is  not  strange  when  we  consider 
that  the  Hebrews  possessed  a  strong  dramatic 
instinct,  but  no  theatre  in  which  that  instinct 
could  find  expression.  Consequently,  the  dra¬ 
matic  impulse  tended  to  the  development  of  a 
stately  ritual,  just  as  in  Medieval  England  the 
dramatic  impulse  found  expression  in  the  cere¬ 
mony  of  the  mass,  with  its  elaborate  symbolism. 
Out  of  the  latter  grew  the  modern  drama  through 
the  miracle  play,  which  was  the  direct  result  of 
the  desire  of  the  church  to  educate  the  people 
through  giving  its  mysteries  concrete  representa¬ 
tion.  One  wonders  whether,  had  the  Temple  not 
been  destroyed,  a  like  evolution  might  not  have 
resulted  in  the  development  of  a  Hebrew  drama. 

^Deut.  33:10;  Lev.  10:10,  11. 

s  Num.  27 :21. 

®  Num.  6:22-27. 


98  OUR  MODERN  DEBT  TO  ISRAEL 


At  all  events,  the  conditions  that  gave  rise  to  the 
modern  drama  seem  all  to  have  been  represented 
in  ancient  Israel. 

The  sacrifice,  for  example,  was  simply  an  ob¬ 
ject  lesson  —  a  method  of  teaching  by  symbols 
—  certain  truths  that  the  priests  wished  to  im¬ 
press  upon  the  people.  Thus  the  three  kinds 
of  sacrifice  each  possessed  a  symbolic  meaning. 
The  sin  and  trespass  7  offering  visually  rep¬ 
resented  the  idea  of  atonement.  They  implied 
that  an  interruption  of  relations  between  the  wor¬ 
shipper  and  God  had  occurred,  and  symbolized 
the  need  for  reconciliation.  The  burnt  offering 
typified  the  complete  consecration  of  the  wor¬ 
shipper  to  God.  As  the  need  of  national  conse¬ 
cration  required  to  be  kept  constantly  before  the 
eyes  of  the  people,  a  burnt  offering,  called  the 
44  continual  burnt  offering  ”  was  offered  each 
morning  and  evening.8  The  peace  offering 
shadowed  forth  the  realization  of  restored  peace 
with  God,  and  the  joy  of  sin  forgiven.9  It  is 
significant  that  when  these  three  kinds  of  sacri¬ 
fices  were  offered  consecutively,  the  sin  offering 
came  first,  then  the  burnt  offering,  and  finally 
the  peace  offering,  thus  emphasizing  by  a  sort 
of  ocular  demonstration  the  order  of  religious 
experience  —  atonement,  consecration,  and  peace. 

7  The  trespass  or  guilt  offering  was  only  a  special  kind  of 
sin  offering.  See  Cambridge  Companion  to  the  Bible,  p.  407, 
and  Lev.  5:1-9. 

8  Lev.  1:9;  Deut.  33:10. 

9  Lev.  22:18,  29. 


THE  PRIESTS 


99 


Similarly  in  the  ritual  of  the  animal  sacrifice 
there  were  six  symbolic  acts.  There  was  first 
the  presentation  of  the  animal  at  the  door  of 
the  sanctuary  by  the  person  making  the  offering. 
The  animal  must  be  “  without  blemish  ”  —  that 
is,  it  must  represent  on  the  part  of  the  wor¬ 
shipper  a  real  sacrifice.  He  could  not  give  to 
God  what  he  would  not  offer  to  a  friend;  but, 
with  this  one  restriction,  he  might  bring  what  he 
pleased.  The  value  of  the  sacrifice  was  never 
measured  by  its  costliness.  Moreover,  by  the 
presentation  of  the  animal  was  symbolized  the  vol¬ 
untary  nature  of  the  act.  It  was  never  among  the 
Hebrews,  as  among  pagan  worshippers,  regarded 
as  compulsory.10  After  the  presentation,  the 
worshipper  pressed  his  hands  upon  the  head  of  the 
animal,  thus  representing  the  dedication  of  the 
beast  to  God.11  Thirdly,  the  slaying  of  the  ani¬ 
mal  completed  the  dedication  previously  symbol¬ 
ized  by  the  laying  on  of  hands.  Fourthly,  the 
priest  collected  the  blood,  and  applied  it  in  vari¬ 
ous  ways  according  to  the  nature  of  the  sacrifice. 
The  blood  represented  the  life.  It  therefore  be¬ 
longed  to  God;  no  man  might  touch  it.12  Fifthly, 
the  priest,  after  preparing  the  body  of  the  animal, 
burned  it  on  the  altar.13  This  burning  symbolized 
the  purification  and  consecration  of  the  worshipper. 

10  Lev.  1 :3. 

11  Lev.  16:21;  cf.  Num.  27:18;  Deut.  34:9. 

i2I  Sam.  14:32-34;  Lev.  17:3  ff. 

is  In  some  cases,  the  fat  only  was  burnt,  as  in  the  case  of 
the  peace  offering. 


100  OUR  MODERN  DEBT  TO  ISRAEL 


Sixthly,  in  the  case  of  the  peace  offering,  the 
sacrificial  meal  was  eaten  by  the  person  making 
the  sacrifice  and  by  his  family.  This  sacrificial 
meal  represented  the  union  of  God  and  his  people, 
and  the  rejoicing  caused  by  the  restored  concord. 

This  latter  part  of  the  sacrificial  cult  clearly 
proves  that  the  primitive  idea  of  the  nature  of 
the  sacrificial  act  persisted  even  to  the  latest 
period  of  Old  Testament  history.  In  the  early 
period,  deity  was  supposed  to  be  present  and  to 
share  the  food  with  his  people.  Consequently, 
every  meal  became  in  a  sense  a  sacrifice.14  Such 
a  primitive  sacrificial  meal  is  described  in  1 
Samuel,  Chap.  9,  as  having  been  eaten  at  Shiloh. 
The  prophet  Samuel  was  present,  not  however  as 
a  priest,  for  none  was  needed,  but  simply  as  an 
honored  guest  to  furnish  dignity  to  the  feast  by 
bis  presence,  and  sanctity  by  his  blessing  of  the 
sacrifice.15  As  on  all  such  occasions  when  animal 
food  was  eaten,  God  was  supposed  to  be  present, 
and  a  part  of  the  food  was  set  aside  for  him ;  but 
the  important  feature  of  the  occasion  was  not 
religious,  but  festal.  The  modern  picnic  dig¬ 
nified  by  the  presence  of  a  clergyman  to  say 
grace  before  the  food  is  eaten  furnishes  a  modern 
analogy.  Indeed,  some  have  gone  so  far  as  to 
assert 16  that  the  modern  picnic  is  an  evolution 
from  such  primitive  sacrificial  feasts,  as  the  New 

14  See  W.  R.  Smith,  Religion  of  the  Semites,  p.  236  ff,  and 
Day,  Social  Life  of  the  Hebrews,  p.  42  ff. 

I  Sam.  9:13. 

is  Day,  Social  Life  of  the  Hebrews,  p.  45. 


THE  PRIESTS 


101 


England  donation  party  is  a  survival  of  the  cus¬ 
tom  in  later  Israel  of  sending  a  portion  of  the 
slain  animal  to  the  priest.  That  sacrifice  was 
originally  thought  of  as  a  meal  offered  to  deity 
is  evidenced,  also,  by  the  fact  that  the  Hebrew 
word  for  sacrifice  (minhah)  means  a  gift,  and 
that  the  gifts  offered  in  sacrifice  were  al¬ 
ways  something  to  eat  or  drink.  Again  and  again 
the  material  of  the  sacrifice  is  spoken  of  as  the 
“  food,”  or  “  bread,  of  God.”  17  So  far  as  the 
early  sacrificial  feast  was  religious  at  all,  it  em¬ 
bodied  a  very  simple  idea.  God  was  thought  of 
as  being  present  with  the  feasters,  as  sharing  the 
food  with  them,  and  as  blessing  them.  In  other 
words  the  essential  idea  in  the  early  sacrifice  was 
communion. 

This  basic  idea  of  communion  is  character¬ 
istic  of  all  the  Hebrew  thought  of  sacrifice,  though 
the  fact  is  somewhat  obscured  by  the  later 
development  of  the  sacrificial  cult.  The  close 
parallel  between  the  development  of  the  sacri¬ 
ficial  cult  and  the  evolution  of  the  idea  of  God 
in  Israel  has  been  pointed  out.18  As  the  con¬ 
ception  grew  that  Jahwe,  the  God  of  the  whole 
world,  was  an  altogether  transcendent  deity,  and 
when  such  an  awe  came  to  be  attached  to  the 
divine  name  that  it  became  unutterable,  the  idea 
of  the  difficulty  of  sinful  man’s  approach  to  such 
an  exalted  being  became  more  and  more  prom- 

17  Lev.  21:6,  8,  17,  .21;  22:25;  Ezek.  44:7. 

18  S.  G.  Smith,  Religion  in  the  Making,  p.  176. 


102  OUR  MODERN  DEBT  TO  ISRAEL 


inent.  In  other  words,  as  the  idea  of  God  became 
exalted,  the  difficulty  of  approaching  his  awful 
presence  came  to  be  emphasized.19  The  greatest 
obstacle  to  man’s  approach  was  sin.  Before  com¬ 
munion  could  be  enjoyed,  therefore,  the  sin  that 
separated  man  from  God  must  be  atoned  for. 
Hence  it  came  about  that  in  proportion  as  the 
priestly  thought  of  God  became  exalted,  the  ritual 
became  more  elaborate  and  more  sombre  as  the 
idea  of  the  need  of  atonement  became  more  prom¬ 
inent. 

The  whole  idea  of  atonement  in  the  priestly 
code  was  based  upon  a  realization  of  sin  as  a 
cause  of  estrangement  from  God,  and  of  the  need 
of  reconciliation  before  communion  could  be  en¬ 
joyed.20  The  sin  must  in  some  way  be  atoned 
for,  “  covered  ”  is  the  literal  meaning  of  the  word, 
so  as  to  be  put  out  of  God’s  sight  in  order  that 
He  and  his  worshipper  might  be  at-one  again. 
The  covering  of  the  sin  must  be  done  by  God, 
not  by  man,  for  only  God  could  remove  it.  The 
sin-offering  and  the  trespass-offering,  were  not 
offered,  therefore,  with  the  thought  of  appeasing 
God’s  anger,  nor  of  averting  a  penalty,  but  with 
the  thought  that  by  these  offerings  the  soul  of 
the  worshipper  might  be  restored  to  a  friendly  re¬ 
lation  with  God.21  As  Dr.  Lyman  Abbott  says:  22 

19  See  Marti,  Religion  of  the  Old  Testament,  pp.  220  ff. 

20  See  article  “  Atonement  ”  in  The  Jewish  Encyclopaedia. 

21  See  A.  B.  Davidson,  Theology  of  the  Old  Testament, 
pp.  320-325. 

22  Life  and  Literature  of  the  Ancient  Hebrews,  p.  159. 


THE  PRIESTS 


10 $ 

“  The  Levitical  sacrifice  was  a  means  for  the  puri¬ 
fication  of  the  sinner,  not  for  the  pacification  of 
Jehovah.”  With  this  idea  of  the  significance  of  the 
atonement  in  mind,  it  is  easier  to  understand 
the  symbolism  of  the  sprinkling  of  the  blood.  To 
the  Hebrew  the  blood  represented  the  life.  The 
ceremony  of  the  priest’s  sprinkling  of  the  blood 
upon  the  altar  emphasized  the  idea  that  there 
had  been  a  renewal  of  man’s  covenant  of  life  with 
God.  This  appears  to  be  the  meaning  of  the 
statement  in  the  Law:23  “For  the  life  of  the 
flesh  is  in  the  blood ;  and  I  have  given  it  to  you 
upon  the  altar  to  make  atonement  for  your  souls : 
for  it  is  the  blood  that  maketh  atonement  by 
reason  of  the  life.” 

The  sacrificial  rites  were,  therefore,  a  sym¬ 
bolical  drama  intended  to  represent  visually  and 
through  action  certain  fundamental  truths. 
These  truths  were :  first,  that  God  is  holy ; 
secondly,  that  man  is  by  his  sin  estranged  from 
him ;  thirdly,  that  the  estrangement  must  be  re¬ 
moved  by  an  atonement  (a  covering  of  the  sin  by 
deity)  before  communion  can  be  restored. 

As  leaders  of  Israelitish  thought,  the  priests 
gave  their  message,  not  only  dramatically  through 
the  symbolism  of  the  sacrificial  cult,  but  partly 
through  the  Law,  of  which  they  were  at  the  same 
time  the  authors,  the  conservers,  and  the  inter¬ 
preters.  In  order  to  understand  their  message 

23  Lev.  17:11.  See,  also,  Trumbull,  The  Blood  Covenant , 
p.  247. 


104*  OUR  MODERN  DEBT  TO  ISRAEL 


it  becomes  necessary,  therefore,  to  consider 
briefly  what  Hebrew  law  was  in  distinction  from 
other  legal  systems.  Only  by  such  a  comparative 
method  of  approach  can  we  hope  to  understand 
what  was  the  basic  principle  upon  which  the 
whole  system  of  Hebrew  jurisprudence  was  really 
founded,  and  to  appreciate  the  uniqueness  and 
the  loftiness  of  the  priestly  contribution  to  the 
ethical  equipment  of  our  race. 

Law,  as  we  to-day  understand  it,  a  body  of 
enacted  rules  recognized  by  a  community  as 
binding,  was  unknown  in  ancient  Israel.  The 
word  they  used  for  law,  “  torah,”  meant  instruc¬ 
tion,  direction,  guidance,  and  was  a  word  of  far 
wider  application  than  our  word  “  law,”  for  it 
included  both  oral  and  written  instructions,24 
and  was  a  general  rule  of  life.  Its  gradual 
development,  in  the  light  of  modern  scholarship, 
may  be  clearly  traced  through  the  four  periods 
which  correspond  to  the  stages  of  growth 
characteristic  of  all  ancient  legal  systems  of  which 
we  have  any  knowledge.20  There  was,  first,  the 
period  of  natural  law,  or  lawlessness.  Secondly, 
there  was  the  period  of  divine  law,  or  that  in 
which  all  questions  were  referred  to  and  decided 
by  men,  or  classes,  regarded  as  representing  the 
deity.  Such  decisions  did  not  presuppose  a  law 

24  Compare  Deut.  17:11. 

25  See  Maine,  Ancient  Law,  Int.  pp.  XV-XVI.  See,  also, 
Kent  and  Sanders,  Biblical  and  Semitic  Studies,  “  The 
Growth  of  Israelitish  Law,”  pp.  63,  64. 


THE  PRIESTS 


105 


to  have  been  violated,  but  were  transmitted  from 
a  higher  power  into  the  judge’s  mind  at  the 
moment  of  giving  sentence.  To  this  succeeded 
the  period  of  customary,  or  unwritten  law,  when 
law  was  assumed  to  be  precisely  known  to  a 
privileged  order  or  caste.  In  a  time  precedent 
to  a  knowledge  of  the  art  of  writing,  the  existence 
of  such  a  caste  was  really  necessary  to  the  con¬ 
servation  of  the  customs  of  a  race.  Finally  there 
was  a  period  of  codes,  or  of  written  law,  when 
pre-existent  law  was  crystallized,  and  when  the 
spontaneous  development  of  law,  consequently, 
ceased. 

The  codification  of  Israel’s  law  was  a  long 
process,  covering  several  centuries.26  It  began 
with  certain  primitive  codes,  so  simple  and  so  con¬ 
cise  as  to  suggest  that  they  were  merely  oral  in¬ 
structions  reduced  to  writing.  Such  is  the  dec¬ 
alogue,  “  the  ten  words,”  in  the  two  forms  (Exod. 
20:  1-17  and  Deut.  5:  6-21);  the  small  book  of 
the  covenant  27  and  the  large  book  of  the  cove¬ 
nant.28  The  briefest  examination  of  this  col¬ 
lection  of  primitive  codes  reveals  their  uniqueness. 
The  fundamental  principle  that  underlies  them 
is  that  human  society  is  bound  together  by  moral 
laws  that  have  their  origin,  not  in  the  will  of  an 

26  See  Fowler,  History  of  the  Literature  of  Ancient  Israel, 
pp.  293  ff,  and  Fiske,  The  Great  Epic  of  Israel,  pp.  229  IF. 

27  Exod.  34:12-14;  34:17;  34:19-20;  34:18  and  21-23; 
34:25,  26. 

28  Exod.  20:23-26;  21:2-6;  21:7-11;  21:12-1 6;  21:17; 
21:18-25;  21:26-23:19. 


106  OUR  MODERN  DEBT  TO  ISRAEL 


earthly  monarch,  nor  in  the  collective  wills  of  a 
legislative  body,  but  in  God  himself.  Being  hi 
source  divine,  they  are  as  unalterable  as  the 
Medes  and  Persians  claimed  their  laws  to  be,  or 
as  the  laws  of  nature  really  are.  In  recognizing 
these  moral  laws,  and  in  submitting  to  them,  the 
Hebrews  pledged  themselves  to  a  set  of  principles 
without  a  parallel  in  any  human  polity.  Theirs 
was  a  federal  and  social  contract,  not  between 
the  people  at  large  and  certain  privileged  classes, 
to  whom  were  to  be  delegated  a  little  brief 
authority ;  nor  between  the  people  and  certain 
individuals,  regarded  as  possessing  a  divine  right 
to  govern,  but  between  the  Hebrew  nation  and 
the  founder  of  the  state,  regarded  as  the  Lord  of 
the  heavens  and  the  earth.  Moses,  the  great 
law-giver  of  Israel,  is  represented  as  declaring :  29 
“  Behold  the  heaven  and  the  heaven  of  heavens 
is  the  Lord’s  thy  God,  the  earth  also,  with  all 
that  herein  is.  Only  the  Lord  had  a  delight  in 
thy  fathers  to  love  them,  and  he  chose  their  seed 
after  them,  even  you  above  all  peoples,  as  it  is 
this  day.” 

Not  less  fundamental  was  the  idea  of  mono¬ 
theism  connected  with  the  covenant.  “  Thou 
shalt  have  no  other  gods  before  me  ”  was  the  first 
command  of  the  decalogue ; 30  and  “  Hear,  O 
Israel:  the  Lord  our  God  is  one  Lord”31 
remained  the  basic  article  of  the  creed  of  Israel 
through  all  succeeding  years.  No  other  people 
29  Deut.  10:14,  15.  ^  Ex.  20:3.  3i  Deut.  6:4. 


THE  PRIESTS 


107 


of  that  age  believed  this.  There  was  not  a  civil 
constitution  then  in  being  that  was  not  based 
upon  the  assumed  truth  of  polytheism.  Israel 
alone  was  to  justify  its  election  from  among  the 
nations  by  its  identification  with  the  worship  of 
the  one  great  Creator. 

Closely  related  to  the  emphasis  upon  the  unity 
of  God  was  the  stress  laid  by  these  primitive  codes 
upon  the  unity  of  the  state,  and  the  equality  of 
its  citizens.  There  was  absolutely  no  recognition 
of  a  privileged  class.  The  institution  of  the 
priesthood,  and  the  setting  apart  of  the  tribe  of 
Levi  for  their  peculiar  function,  with  the  con¬ 
sequent  development  of  a  sacerdotal  and  literary 
aristocracy,  was  a  later  phase  of  legalism,  and 
was  entirely  opposed  to  the  principles  of 
the  early  codes.  In  contrast  to  the  polity  of 
ancient  Egypt,  for  example,  there  were  to  be 
recognized  in  Israel  no  hereditary  castes.  No 
dignities  nor  special  privileges  were  to  be  assigned 
to  one  class,  and  no  inherited  inferiority  to 
another.  All  were  to  be  equally  privileged,  and 
all  were  amenable  to  the  same  duties. 

The  principles  governing  the  inter-relations  of 
the  members  of  the  Hebrew  community,  as  set 
forth  by  the  primitive  codes,  are  thus  restated  by 
Doctor  Abbott:32  “  Spiritual  reverence  for  God; 
preservation  of  some  time  free  from  the  drudgery 
of  toil  for  the  development  of  the  higher  nature ; 
respect  for  parents ;  regard  for  the  rights  of  per- 
32  Life  and  Literature  of  the  Ancient  Hebrews,  p.  112. 


108  OUR  MODERN  DEBT  TO  ISRAEL 


son,  of  the  family,  of  property,  of  reputation ; 
and,  last,  this  respect  real  and  spontaneous,  not 
formal  and  enforced.”  That  these  are  the  fun¬ 
damental  laws  of  human  life,  upon  the  mainte¬ 
nance  of  which  the  welfare,  and  even  the  con¬ 
tinued  existence  of  the  social  order  depends,  there 
can,  of  course,  be  no  question.  44  When  a  com¬ 
munity,”  continues  Doctor  Abbott,  commenting 
upon  the  passage  above  cited,  44  bases  government 
on  either  the  power  of  the  governor,  leading  to 
despotism,  or  on  the  consent  of  the  governed, 
leading  to  anarchy,  it  violates  the  first  of  these 
laws.  When  it  substitutes  symbols  for  realities, 
promotes  and  encourages  the  spirit  of  irreverence, 
devotes  all  its  energies  to  material  advancement, 
forgetting  all  need  of,  and  all  ministry  to  the 
higher  life,  and  makes  every  day  a  workday,  and 
wealth  the  measure  of  prosperity,  it  violates  the 
second,  third  and  fourth  laws.  When,  through 
the  disregard  of  parents,  it  suffers  the  disinte¬ 
gration  of  the  family,  which  is  itself  the  unit  of 
organized  society,  and  so  prepares  the  way  for 
widespread  social  disorder,  it  violates  the  fifth 
law.  When  it  fails  to  afford  protection  of  the 
innocent  from  the  oppression  of  the  strong  or 
the  violence  of  mobs,  or  suffers  such  industrial 
conditions  as  destroy  men  and  women  and  children 
before  their  time  in  mining  and  manufacturing 
industries,  it  violates  the  sixth  law.  When  it  per¬ 
mits  the  practice  of  polygamy,  or  encourages 
licentiousness  in  legalized  forms  by  freedom  of 


THE  PRIESTS 


109 


divorce,  it  violates  the  seventh  law.  When  it 
taxes  a  helpless  and  prostrate  people  under  forms 
of  law,  giving  them  by  law  none  of  the  benefits 
for  which  governments  are  organized,  it  violates 
the  eighth  law.  When  it  allows  honored  citizens 
whose  life  has  been  devoted  to  the  public  service 
of  the  community  to  be  slandered  by  a  sensational 
and  unprincipled  press,  and  continues  to  give  the 
press  its  support,  it  violates  the  ninth  law. 
When  it  depends  wholly  or  chiefly  on  force  to 
maintain  these  laws,  failing  to  furnish  such  edu¬ 
cation  as  will  make  obedience  to  them  voluntary 
and  spontaneous,  it  violates  the  tenth  law.”  The 
modern  broadening  of  the  social  consciousness,  and 
the  powerful  moral  impulse  aroused  by  such 
investigations  as  that  of  the  state  vice  commis¬ 
sions  into  the  relations  of  poverty,  with  its  drain 
upon  the  moral  and  physical  nature,  to  social 
delinquency,  indicate  clearly  that  at  last  we  are 
awaking  to  a  realization,  belated,  but  more  or  less 
complete,  that  the  fundamental  principles  under¬ 
lying  Hebrew  legislation  were  the  elemental  laws 
of  human  life,  which  can  be  ignored  only  at  the 
expense  of  the  social  order. 

Upon  such  a  substratum  the  legal  system  of 
later  Israel  was  reared.  It  was  a  gradual 
growth,  of  which  some  of  the  stages  are  clearly 
evident.  One  of  the  most  important  of  them  cer¬ 
tainly  was  the  codification  of  existing  law  made 
in  the  sixth  century  R.  C.  The  work  was  done 
by  a  man,  or  a  group  of  men,  whose  names  are 


110  OUR  MODERN  DEBT  TO  ISRAEL 


unknown,  because  in  the  times  of  Manasseh,  when 
the  work  was  done,  discovery  would  have  meant 
death  to  the  authors,  and  the  destruction  of  the 
manuscript.  The  preservation  of  the  manuscript 
was  insured  by  concealing  it  in  the  Temple.  Ma¬ 
nasseh  died  in  641  B.  C.,  and  Amon,  his  son,  was 
slain  by  his  own  people  after  a  reign  of  less  than 
two  years.  The  accession  of  Josiah,  a  boy  of 
eight,  seems  to  have  reawakened  the  religious  spirit 
in  Israel.  In  the  eighteenth  year  of  Josiah  (621 
B.  C.)  Hilkiah,  the  priest,  gave  to  Shaphan,  the 
scribe,  on  the  occasion  of  the  latter’s  official  visit 
to  the  Temple,  the  book  of  the  codes  which  had 
been  found  there.  This,  Shaphan  at  once  read 
before  the  young  king.  The  effect  was  immediate 
and  far-reaching.  The  king  called  the  people  to¬ 
gether  for  a  solemn  ratification  of  the  book  as 
the  law  of  the  kingdom.33 

The  popularization  and  the  public  ratification 
of  the  Book  of  Deuteronomy,  for  this  is  the  name 
by  which  we  know  the  manuscript  that  Hilkiah  de¬ 
livered  to  Shaphan,34  were  from  our  modern 
point  of  view  among  the  most  important  events  of 
the  ancient  world.  44  Their  results,”  declares  Pro¬ 
fessor  Cornill,35  44  have  been  simply  immeasurable. 
By  them  Israel,  nay,  the  whole  world,  has  been 

33  II  Kings  23. 

34  See  Moore,  in  his  introduction  to  the  edition  of  “  The 

Book  of  Deuteronomy  ”  ( International  Critical  Com¬ 

mentary)  and  Driver,  Introduction  to  the  Literature  of  the 
Old  Testament,  p.  69  if. 

as  Prophets  of  Israel,  p.  82  ff. 


THE  PRIESTS 


111 


directed  into  new  courses.  We  are  today  still  un¬ 
der  the  influence  of  beliefs  which  were  then  pro¬ 
mulgated  for  the  first  time,  under  the  sway  of 
forces  which  then  first  came  into  life.” 

The  Deuteronomic  36  code  reemphasized  certain 
basis  principles  of  the  earlier  legislation.  At  the 
beginning  of  the  book  we  find  the  decalogue  re¬ 
peated,  and  the  author  reasserting  in  unequivocal 
terms  the  religious  basis  of  the  state,  and  the 
unity  of  God.37  Like  the  older  codes,  this,  too, 
laid  great  emphasis  upon  the  necessity  of  a  sanc¬ 
tion  in  the  conscience  of  the  people.  Indeed  this 
idea  that  obedience  to  law  must  be  voluntary  was, 
and  continued  to  be,  one  of  the  unique  features 
of  Hebrew  legislation.  In  contrast  to  the  elabo¬ 
rate  system  of  police,  and  courts,  and  penalties 
that  we  are  accustomed  to  see  employed  for  the 
enforcement  of  the  law  in  modern  Christendom, 
there  was  in  ancient  Israel  comparatively  little 
legal  machinery.  The  lack  of  it  was  due  to  the 
Hebrew  belief  that  the  law  was  not  something 
outside  man,  an  injunction  laid  upon  him  from 
without;  but  that  it  was  an  objective  presentation 
of  man’s  own  reason  and  sense  of  justice.  By  the 
author  of  Deuteronomy,  God  is  represented  as 
saying  to  Israel:38  “For  this  commandment 
which  I  command  thee  this  day,  it  is  not  too  hard 

36  The  name  is  significant.  It  means  the  “  second  law,”  or 
the  “  second  giving  of  the  law.” 

37  Deut.  6:4;  10:17;  cf.  3:24,  4:35,  39. 

38  Deut.  30:11-14. 


112  OUR  MODERN  DEBT  TO  ISRAEL 


for  thee,  neither  is  it  far  off.  It  is  not  in  heaven, 
that  thou  shouldest  say,  Who  shall  go  up  for  us 
to  heaven,  and  bring  it  unto  us,  and  make  us  to 
hear  it,  that  we  may  do  it?  Neither  is  it  beyond 
the  sea,  that  thou  shouldest  say,  Who  shall  go 
over  the  sea  for  us,  and  bring  it  unto  us,  and  make 
us  hear  it,  that  we  may  do  it  ?  But  the  word  is  very 
nigh  unto  thee,  in  thy  mouth,  and  in  thy  heart, 
that  thou  mayest  do  it.”  That  obedience  to  the 
law  was  not  obligatory,  but  a  matter  of  moral 
choice,  is  emphasized  again  and  again.  Once 
Moses  is  made  to  say,39  “  I  call  heaven  and  earth 
to  witness  against  you  this  day,  that  I  have  set 
before  thee  life  and  death,  the  blessing  and  the 
curse :  wherefore  choose  life,  that  thou  mayest  live, 
thou  and  thy  seed.” 

Yet  Deuteronomy  was  more  than  an  emphatic 
re-affirmation  of  the  fundamental  principle  of  loy¬ 
alty  to  Jehovah  laid  down  in  the  Covenant.  It 
was  a  re-formulation  of  an  older  legislation,  and 
an  adaptation  of  it,  under  prophetic  influence,  to 
new  needs.  It  was  an  attempt  to  realize  in  prac¬ 
tice  the  ideals  of  the  eighth  century  prophets,  to 
transform  the  nation,  demoralized  by  the  idolatry 
prevalent  under  Manasseh’s  rule,  into  a  true  theoc¬ 
racy  ;  to  awaken  Judah  to  renewed  love  to  God  and 
man,  which  Hosea  had  declared  to  be  the  first  of 
human  duties.  It  is  noticeable  that  the  remarkable 
summary  of  the  whole  duty  of  man  found  in 

39  Deut.  30:19.  See,  also,  Kent,  Origin  and  Permanent 
Value  of  the  Old  Testament,  pp.  140,  141. 


THE  PRIESTS 


113 


Deuteronomy  10:12  is  obviously  borrowed  almost 
verbatim  from  Micah’s  statement  of  the  essentials 
of  true  religion,40  and  hence  embodies  the  essential 
teachings  of  Amos,  Hosea,  and  Isaiah.  Nothing 
better  illustrates  the  extent  to  which  Deuteronomy 
reflects  the  spirit  of  social  justice  awakened  by 
the  prophets  of  the  eighth  century  41  than  the  leg¬ 
islation  regarding  slaves.42  Yet  the  spirit  of  al¬ 
truism  in  the  Deuteronomic  legislation  appears 
not  alone  in  the  laws  regulating  the  treatment  of 
slaves.  Nowhere  else  in  ancient  legislation  is  the 
sacredness  of  human  life  emphasized  to  the  same 
extent.  Elsewhere  we  may  look  in  vain  for  such 
a  law  as  that  a  man  in  building  a  house  shall 
“  make  a  battlement  for  thy  roof,  that  thou  bring 
not  blood  upon  thy  house,  if  any  man  fall  from 
thence.”  43  Nor  is  there  anywhere  in  other  an¬ 
cient  legislation,  either  theoretical  or  practical, 
a  parallel  to  the  Deuteronomic  law  regarding 
homicide  by  an  unknown  person.44  This  law  is 
said  to  be  the  origin  of  the  coroner’s  inquest  of 
modern  times.  The  law  provided  that,  when  a 
man  was  found  slain  in  the  field,  the  elders  and 
judges  should  “  measure  unto  the  cities  which  are 

40  Micah  6 :8. 

41  It  will  be  remembered  that  it  was  a  prophet  who  first 
taught  by  an  impressive  object  lesson  the  duty  of  treating 
humanely  prisoners  of  war.  See  II  Kings  6.  Cf.  Deut. 
21 :10-14. 

42  See  Deut.  15:12—18;  23:15  ff;  24:14  ff. 

43  Deut.  22:8. 

44  Deut.  21  :l-9.  The  nearest  parallel  is  Plato  de  Leg. 


114  OUR  MODERN  DEBT  TO  ISRAEL 


round  about  him  that  is  slain.”  Then  by  a  solemn 
ritual,  the  elders  of  the  nearest  city  were  to  purge 
their  city  of  the  murder,  and  solemnly  to  disavow 
their  knowledge  of  the  criminal.  In  the  absence 
of  newspapers,  no  better  means  could  have  been 
devised  to  give  publicity  to  the  crime,  and  to 
force  any  one  knowing  the  facts  to  reveal  them. 

Nor  was  human  life  alone  considered  worthy 
of  protection  by  the  legalists  of  ancient  Israel. 
He  that  doth  the  ravens  feed,  yea,  providently 
caters  for  the  sparrow,  was  thought  to  require 
humane  treatment  of  our  poor  relations,  the  ani¬ 
mals.  Consequently,  the  Hebrew  was  forbidden  to 
44  muzzle  the  ox  when  he  treadeth  out  the  corn.”  45 
He  was  prohibited,  also,  from  taking  the  mother 
bird  from  her  eggs,  44  that  it  may  be  well  with 
thee,  and  that  thou  mayest  prolong  thy  days.”  46 
Humane  societies  are  usually  regarded  as  of  mod¬ 
ern  origin.  It  is  interesting,  therefore,  to  find 
this  national  society  for  the  prevention  of  cruelty 
to  animals  dating  from  the  time  of  Josiah. 

We  are  hearing  a  good  deal  in  these  days  about 
44  conservation,”  and  44  forest  preservation  ”  is  be¬ 
coming  a  political  slogan ;  but  the  idea  is  not  a 
new  one.  The  Hebrews  had  such  a  sense  of  the 
beauty  and  the  utility  of  trees  that  they  loved  the 
cedars  that  waved  on  Lebanon  — 44  the  cedars  that 
He  hath  planted.”  47  The  growth  of  the  tree  be¬ 
came  to  them  the  symbol  of  spiritual  growth ; 
44  The  righteous  shall  grow  like  the  cedar  in  Leb- 

45  Deut.  25:4.  46  Deut.  22:6.  4?  Ps.  104:16. 


THE  PRIESTS 


115 


anon,”  48  and  44  shall  be  like  a  tree  planted  by  the 
rivers  of  waters.”  49  So  great  was  their  regard 
for  trees  that  they  were  forbidden  to  cut  them 
down  even  in  an  enemy’s  country,  44  for,  is  the 
tree  of  the  field  man,”  pertinently  asks  the  law¬ 
giver,  44  that  it  should  be  besieged  of  thee?  ”  50 

The  book  of  Deuteronomy  was  an  attempt  to 
realize  the  prophetic  hope  of  the  kingdom  of  God 
on  earth.  Through  a  pure  worship  of  God,  and 
through  righteousness  and  benevolence  of  social 
life,  Israel  was  to  become  a  real  theocracy  —  a 
nation  governed  directly  by  the  will  of  God. 
Though  it  failed  to  accomplish  the  purpose  for 
which  it  was  designed,  though,  by  making  a  book 
the  foundation  of  religion,  it  substituted  the  dead 
letter  for  the  living  revelation  of  God,  it  never¬ 
theless  merits  the  designation  given  it  by  Professor 
Cornill  of  44  perhaps  the  most  significant  and  mo¬ 
mentous  book  that  was  ever  written.”  In  justifi¬ 
cation  of  his  estimate,  Professor  Cornill  says : 
44  The  opposition  of  secular  and  sacred,  of  laity 
and  clergy,  of  State  and  Church,  the  conception 
of  a  holy  writ  and  of  a  divine  inspiration,  can  be 
traced  back  in  its  last  roots  to  the  Deuteronomy 
of  the  year  621,  together  with  the  whole  history 
of  revealed  religion  down  to  the  present  time,  in¬ 
cluding  not  only  Judaism  but  Christianity  and 
Islam,  who  have  simply  borrowed  these  ideas  from 
Judaism.”  51 

48  Ps.  92:12.  so  Deut.  20:19. 

49  Ps.  1 :1.  si  Prophets  of  Israel ,  pp.  89,  90. 


116  OUR  MODERN  DEBT  TO  ISRAEL 


The  third  stage  in  the  growth  of  Hebrew  legis¬ 
lation  is  represented  by  the  Levitical  code,  so  called 
because  it  is  found  in  the  book  of  Leviticus  (with 
parts  of  Exodus)  and  Numbers.52  In  distinction 
from  Deuteronomy,  it  is  not  didactic,  but  is  rather 
a  manual  of  religious  customs  and  practices.53 
As  such,  it  became  the  official  guide  of  the  returned 
exiles ;  and  was  formally  proclaimed  and  adopted 
in  the  time  of  Ezra.54  Like  the  Deuteronomic 
legislation,  it  was  an  attempt  to  present  in  the 
concrete  form  of  specific  precepts  the  broadly  ethi¬ 
cal  truths  that  the  prophets  had  long  proclaimed. 
As  summarized  by  Nehemiah,  it  contained  eight 
important  regulations :  55 

1  The  prohibition  of  marriages  with  the  sur¬ 
rounding  heathen.56 

£  Laws  designed  to  insure  a  strict  observance 
of  the  sabbaths  and  holy  days.57 

3  The  law  of  the  sabbatical  year  with  the  re¬ 
mission  of  all  debts.58 

4  The  imposition  of  a  tax  annually  of  one-third 
of  a  shekel  per  capita  for  the  support  of  the 
temple  services,  including  the  offerings.59 

52  Exod.  25-31;  34:29-40:38;  Leviticus,  and  Numbers. 

53  See  Harper,  The  Priestly  Element  in  the  Old  Testa¬ 
ment,  p.  188. 

54  Neh.  8-10. 

55  This  summary  is  taken  from  Harper,  Priestly  Element 
in  the  Old  Testament,  p.  49. 

56  Neh.  10:30. 

57  Neh.  10:31. 

58  Neh.  10:31. 

59  Neh.  10:32,  33. 


THE  PRIESTS 


117 


5  The  arrangement  for  the  furnishing  of  the 
wood  for  the  burnt  offerings.60 

6  The  law  requiring  the  bringing  of  the  first- 
fruits  and  firstlings  to  the  priests  at  the  tem¬ 
ple.61 

7  The  law  requiring  the  people  to  give  tithes 
to  the  Levites,  and  that  the  priests  bring  tithes 
of  these  tithes  to  the  temple.62 

8  The  regulations  calling  for  hearty  support 
of  the  temple  and  constant  faithfulness  to  it.63 

Some  of  these  regulations  are  unknown  to  the 
Deuteronomic  code,  as  the  law  of  the  sabbatical 
year ;  the  tax  of  one-third  of  a  shekel  for  the  tem¬ 
ple  services ;  the  law  regarding  the  supply  of  fire¬ 
wood  for  the  sacrifices ;  and  the  law  concerning 
tithes. 

One  section  of  the  Levitical  code  deserves  es¬ 
pecial  consideration.  This  is  the  collection  of 
laws  found  in  the  seventeenth  to  the  twenty-sixth 
chapters  of  Leviticus.  From  the  emphasis  that 
these  laws  put  upon  the  holiness  of  Jehovah,  and 
upon  the  need  for  a  corresponding  holiness  on  the 
part  of  those  who  worship  Him,  the  collection  is 
now  generally  referred  to  as  the  “  Holiness  Code.” 
The  most  probable  date  assigned  for  its  composi¬ 
tion  is  the  decade  between  the  first  and  second 
captivity  (597  —  586  B.  C.).  The  author  was 
evidently  a  priest ;  and,  because  he  was  a  priest,  a 
ritualist,  who  saw  in  the  desecrated  temple  and 


so  Neh.  10:34. 

6i  Neh.  10:35-37. 


62  Neh.  10:38. 

63  Neh.  10:39. 


118  OUR  MODERN  DEBT  TO  ISRAEL 


the  scattered  worshippers  a  divine  punishment  for 
national  sin.  His  aim,  therefore,  was  to  produce 
a  code  that  should,  by  making  the  restored  temple 
the  center  of  national  life,  emphasize  the  authority 
and  holiness  of  God. 

Though  the  regulations  of  the  Holiness  Code 
cover  much  of  the  same  ground  as  those  of  the 
earlier  Deuteronomic  legislation,  they  differ  in 
their  scope,  dealing  more  with  the  ceremonial  than 
with  the  civil  side  of  life.  Minute  directions  re¬ 
garding  the  observance  of  “  holy  convocations,”  64 
the  lamps  in  the  Tabernacle,65  and  the  shew- 
bread,66  appear  at  a  casual  reading  of  the  Holi¬ 
ness  Code  to  have  usurped  the  place  of  the  broadly 
ethical  principles  set  forth  in  the  earlier  codes 
under  prophetic  influence.  Yet  the  superficial  ap¬ 
pearance  of  narrow  sacerdotalism  in  the  Holiness 
Code  is  highly  misleading.  Like  the  earlier  leg¬ 
islation,  it  is  based  upon  universal  and  enduring 
principles.  So  filled  was  the  author  with  the  long¬ 
ing  for  social  justice  that  Ezekiel  found  the  Code 
adapted  with  slight  modifications,  to  become  the 
guide  of  the  civil  and  religious  life  of  the  sancti¬ 
fied  citizenship  of  his  ideal  commonwealth  —  the 
holy  city.67 

For  becoming  the  legal  manual  of  an  ideal  com¬ 
munity  whose  members  sin  only  inadvertently,  this 
law  of  holiness,  das  Heilig'keitgesetzf8  was  emi- 

Lev.  23.  66  Lev.  24:5-9. 

65  Lev.  24:1-4.  67  Ezek.  40-48. 

68  It  was  so  called  by  Klostermann  in  1877. 


THE  PRIESTS 


119 


nently  fitted.  The  whole  spirit  of  its  enactments 
is  ideal  and  wholly  alien  to  that  of  any  other  an¬ 
cient  code  outside  of  Israel.  The  basic  idea  of 
Roman  Law,  as  expressed  in  its  earliest  code  — 
that  of  the  twelve  tables, —  is  the  equality  of 
rights  of  Roman  citizens  — “  omnibus,  summis  in- 
finisque,  iura  aequare.”  69  The  fundamental  con¬ 
ception  of  Hebrew  law  was  not  one  of  rights,  but 
of  duty.  Members  of  the  commonwealth  of  Israel 
were  not,  in  the  eyes  of  the  law,  citizens  with 
rights  to  be  conserved,  but  members  of  a  family 
with  mutual  obligations  to  fulfill.  The  obliga¬ 
tion  that  included  all  the  others  was  that  of  mu¬ 
tual  forbearance  and  love.  It  is  well  stated  in 
Leviticus  19 :17-18.  “  Thou  shalt  not  hate  thy 

brother  in  thy  heart.  .  .  .  Thou  shalt  not  take 
vengeance,  nor  bear  any  grudge  against  the  chil¬ 
dren  of  thy  people ;  but  thou  shalt  love  thy  neigh¬ 
bor  as  thyself:  I  am  Jehovah.”  That  this  was 
regarded  by  later  leaders  of  Israelitish  thought 
as  an  adequate  summary  of  the  teachings  of  the 
law  is  clearly  shown  by  certain  passages  in  the 
New  Testament.  Perhaps  the  most  significant  of 
these  is  Jesus’s  answer  to  the  lawyer  of  the  Phari¬ 
sees  who  asked  what  was  the  great  commandment 
of  the  law.  In  his  reply  70  Jesus  quoted  the  latter 

69  So  the  fundamental  conception  of  feudal  law  was  the 
maintenance  of  the  power  of  the  feudal  superior.  In  Eng¬ 
lish  law  it  is  the  liberty  of  the  subject.  See  Keeble,  So¬ 
cial  Teaching  of  the  Bible,  p.  76. 

70  Matt.  22:34-39;  Matt.  5:43;  7:12;  19:16-19. 


120  OUR  MODERN  DEBT  TO  ISRAEL 


part  of  this  passage,  with  the  comment  that  upon 
this,  together  with  the  command  in  Deuteron¬ 
omy 71  to  love  the  Lord  whole-heartedly  “the 
whole  law  hangeth,  and  the  prophets  ” ;  that  is, 
these  two  commands  are  at  the  basis  of  all  pro¬ 
phetic  and  priestly  teaching. 

The  extent  to  which  equity  and  forbearance 
underlie  the  regulations  of  the  Holiness  Code  is 
especially  apparent  in  the  provisions,  supplemen¬ 
tary  to  those  of  the  earlier  codes,  for  the  consid¬ 
erate  treatment  of  the  bondman  and  the  slave. 
By  no  other  system  of  legislation  were  the  personal 
rights  even  of  the  slave  safeguarded  to  the  same 
extent.  The  humane  quality  of  this  legislation 
can  be  best  appreciated  upon  a  brief  comparison 
of  the  condition  of  the  slave  under  the  Roman  and 
the  Hebrew  law ;  for,  though  both  the  Romans 
and  the  Hebrews  tolerated  slavery,  the  lot  of  the 
slave  was  quite  different  under  the  two  systems.72 
Under  the  Roman  civil  law,  the  slave  was  a  thing 
and  not  a  person.  He  had  absolutely  no  rights. 
He  could  own  no  property ;  even  his  life  was  en¬ 
tirely  in  the  hands  of  his  master,  who  could  kill 
or  torture  him  at  will.  As  the  number  of  slaves 

71  Deut.  6:5. 

72  The  Romans  defended  slavery  by  basing  the  institution 
upon  an  imaginary  agreement  between  the  victor  and  his 
vanquished  foe,  according  to  which  the  vanquished  bar¬ 
gained,  in  return  for  his  life  that  he  had  legitimately  for¬ 
feited,  to  serve  his  conqueror.  Such  a  theory,  though  ob¬ 
viously  unsound,  influenced  the  legal  status  of  the  Roman 
slave. 


THE  PRIESTS 


121 


increased,73  it  was  found  necessary  to  protect 
them  by  legislation.  By  a  law  in  force  some  time 
before  79  A.  D.,  masters  were  forbidden  to  deliver 
their  slaves  to  the  beasts  without  a  magistrate’s 
order.'4  In  the  reign  of  Hadrian,  the  consent 
of  a  magistrate  was  required  before  a  master  could 
kill  a  slave.  The  only  way  in  which  the  condition 
of  a  Roman  slave  differed  from  that  of  the  dog 
or  horse,  protected,  as  in  modern  times,  by  laws 
requiring  that  he  be  treated  humanely,  was  in  the 
capacity  the  slave  possessed  of  becoming,  through 
certain  legal  formalities,  a  free  man.  There  was 
always  before  the  eyes  of  the  Roman  slave  the 
hope  of  becoming  free.  Pie  might  by  a  generous 
master  be  manumitted.  The  wholesale  manumis¬ 
sion  of  slaves  by  the  will  of  the  owner  ( Manumis - 
sio  testament o ),  in  order  to  secure  their  presence 
at  his  funeral  as  living  witnesses  to  his  kindness, 
became  so  common  a  practice  under  the  Empire 
that  in  8  A.  D.  a  law  was  made  70  providing  that 
the  owner  of  slaves  might  at  his  death  free  only 
a  fixed  proportion  of  his  slaves,  and  that  in  no 
case  should  the  number  freed  exceed  one  hundred. 
That  cruel  punishments  were  not  unusually  in¬ 
flicted  upon  Roman  slaves  there  is  abundant  testi¬ 
mony.  They  were  sometimes  compelled  to  work 

73  In  the  time  of  Horace,  it  was  not  unusual  for  an  or¬ 
dinary  citizen  to  own  two  hundred  slaves. 

74  Leage,  Roman  Private  Law,  p.  48. 

75  This  law  was  repealed  under  Justinian. 


122  OUR  MODERN  DEBT  TO  ISRAEL 


in  chains  or  fetters.76  Runaway  slaves,  who  were 
recaptured,  were  branded  in  the  forehead,  and 
were  called  “  notati  ”  or  “  inscripti.”  77  Slaves 
were  sometimes  suspended  by  the  hands,  while 
heavy  weights  were  attached  to  the  feet.78  The 
cruelty  of  Roman  women  to  their  female  slaves 
seems  to  have  been  notorious.79  When  slaves 
died,  they  were  thrown  into  a  pit  with  dead  ani¬ 
mals,  unless,  as  Cato  advised,80  they  had  been  pre¬ 
viously  traded  off  for  old  oxen  or  cows.  Old  and 
sick  slaves  were  disposed  of,  either  by  being  killed 
outright,  or  by  being  exposed  on  an  island  in 
the  Tiber.81  Truly  the  lot  of  the  Roman  slave 
was  such  as  to  justify  the  Hebrew  assertion  that 
the  tender  mercies  of  the  heathen  are  cruel. 

While  there  were  in  ancient  Israel,  no  restric¬ 
tions  in  law  or  sentiment  against  the  ownership 
of  slaves,  the  duty  of  treating  them  humanely  was 
insisted  upon  to  a  degree  that  would  have  seemed 
to  the  Greeks  a  stumbling  block,  and  to  the  Ro¬ 
mans  foolishness. 

Slaves  82  in  Israel  were  of  two  classes  —  Hebrew 

Plautus,  Most  1.  1,  18;  Terence,  Phormio  2.  1,  20. 

77  Martial,  7:75;  8:7 5;  Cic.  De  Off.,  2.  7. 

78  Plautus,  Asin.  2.  2,  31. 

79  Juvenal,  Sat.,  VI.  173-175,  177,  498;  Ovid,  Am.  I.  14, 
15;  Martial,  2.  66. 

80  De  Re  Rust.  II. 

si  Uhlhorn  Conflict  of  Christianity  with  Heathenism,  I., 

II.,  5. 

82  The  Hebrew  word  “  ebed  ”  generally  means  “  slave,” 
but  when  used  figuratively,  as  in  Is.  20:3  and  Jer.  37 :2  of  the 
subjects  of  God,  or  of  a  king,  it  is  always  rendered  “ser- 


THE  PRIESTS 


123 


and  non-Hebrew.  A  Hebrew  might  become  a 
slave  in  one  of  two  ways,  either  voluntarily,  be¬ 
cause  of  poverty,83  or  involuntarily  when  the 
court  sold  him  into  slavery  as  a  punishment  for 
theft.84  Even  in  the  latter  case,  the  sale  had  to 
be  a  private  one.  A  Hebrew  could  not  be  sold 
into  bondage  from  an  auction  block,  nor  even 
from  the  sidewalk  where  other  slaves  were  sold.85 
The  service  of  a  Hebrew  bondman  could  not  be 
made  severe,  “  Thou  shalt  not  rule  over  him  with 
rigor,”  said  the  Law,  “  but  shalt  fear  thy  God.”  SG 
His  master  could  not  impose  upon  him  any  humili¬ 
ating  task.87  Moreover,  his  time  of  service  was 
limited  —  in  the  case  of  the  man  sold  involuntar¬ 
ily  —  to  six  years,  in  that  of  the  man  who  sold 
himself,  to  a  longer  time,  generally  to  ten  or  twenty 
years.  In  either  instance  the  Hebrew  slave  might 
become  free  at  any  time  by  the  payment  of  a  sum 
of  money  proportionate  to  the  time  of  his  unex¬ 
pired  service.  If  he  became  ill  during  the  time 
of  his  servitude  and  was  unable  to  work,  the  time 
lost  was  not  counted  against  him,  provided  it  did 
not  exceed  four  years.  Only  if  it  exceeded  four 
years,  was  he  required  to  make  up  the  time  lost. 

vant.”  When  the  word  is  used  of  Hebrew  slaves  it  is  gen¬ 
erally  translated  “  servant  ”  or  “  bondman,”  as  in  Lev.  25 :49. 

83  Lev.  25 :39. 

84  Ex.  22:2 ,  3. 

85  Maimonides,  quoted  in  Jewish  Encyclopaedia ,  article 
“  Slavery.” 

86  Lev.  25 :43. 

87  Lev.  25:39,  40. 


124  OUR  MODERN  DEBT  TO  ISRAEL 


In  any  event,  he  was  to  be  freed  in  the  Sabbatical 
year,ss  unless  he  preferred  to  remain  in  service.89 
Even  if  he  elected  to  remain  in  service,  the  Hebrew 
slave  never  forfeited  his  rights  as  a  man.  If  he 
suffered  personal  injury  at  the  hands  of  his  mas¬ 
ter,  so  that  he  lost  an  eye  or  a  tooth,  he  could 
sue  his  master,  and  recover  damages.  When 
freed,  the  slave  was  entitled  to  a  parting  gift.90 
The  gift  could  not  be  made  in  money,  but  must  be 
from  the  flock,  the  threshing  floor,  and  the  wine¬ 
press,  and  must,  according  to  the  rabbis,  be  of  the 
value  of  thirty  shekels  (about  twenty  dollars). 

Over  non-Hebrew  slaves,  also,  the  power  of  the 
master  was  strictly  limited.  Bodily  injury  at  the 
hands  of  the  owner  that  caused  the  loss  of  an  eye 
or  a  tooth  entitled  the  slave  to  immediate  manu¬ 
mission.91  An  injury  to  a  slave  causing  death 
the  same  day  was  treated  as  murder.92  If  a  slave 
escaped,  the  law  forbade  those  with  whom  he  had 
taken  refuge  to  return  him  to  his  master.93  Upon* 
this  point,  the  law  was  quite  explicit:  “Thou 
shalt  not  deliver  unto  his  master  a  servant  that  is 

88  Ex.  21:2-6;  Jer.  34:8  if  seems  to  indicate  that  this  law 
was  not  always  enforced. 

89  The  year  of  J ubilee,  also,  was  a  year  of  general  emanci¬ 
pation  of  the  slaves,  as  well  as  of  returning  mortgaged 
property  to  its  hereditary  owners.  II  Chron.  36:21;  Jer. 
34:8,  14,  15,  17;  Ezek.  46:17;  Is.  61:1,  2;  63:4. 

90  Deut.  15:12-15. 

si  Ex.  21:26,  27. 

92  Ex.  21:20,  21.  Cf.  Lev.  24:17,  22. 

93  Deut.  23:15,  16.  But  the  owner  might  go  in  pursuit  of 
a  runaway  slave,  I  Kings  2:39,  40.  Among  the  Romans,  the 


THE  PRIESTS 


125 


escaped  from  his  master  unto  thee,  he  shall  dwell 
with  thee,  in  the  midst  of  thee,  in  the  place  which 
he  shall  choose  within  one  of  thy  gates,  where  it 
pleaseth  him  best:  thou  shalt  not  oppress  him.” 

The  Law  provided,  not  only  for  the  humane 
treatment  of  non-Hebrew  slaves,  but  for  their  ad¬ 
mittance  under  certain  conditions,  to  a  share  in 
the  religious  privileges  of  true  Israelites.  They 
were  not  allowed,  any  more  than  the  Hebrews 
themselves,  to  work  on  the  Sabbath,94  the  main 
reason  assigned  in  the  law  for  the  institution  of 
the  Sabbath  as  a  day  of  rest  is  44  that  thine  ox 
and  thine  ass  may  have  rest,  and  the  son  of  thy 
handmaid  (the  slave),  and  the  sojourner  may  be 
refreshed.”  95  Again,  in  Deuteronomy,  the  reason 
for  the  strict  observance  of  the  Sabbath  is  given 
44  that  thy  man-servant  and  thy  maid-servant  may 
rest  as  well  as  thou.  And  thou  shalt  remember 
that  thou  wast  a  servant  in  the  land  of 
Egypt  .  .  .” 96  The  non-Hebrew  slave  might 
even  join  in  the  Passover  feast  provided  he  first 
become  circumcised.97  This  does  not  mean  that 
he  was  required  to  become  a  proselyte,  for  there 
is  no  mention  of  baptism  or  sacrifice,  which,  with 

law  strictly  forbade  the  harboring  of  runaway  slaves.  A 
special  class  of  persons  known  as  fugitivarii  made  the  pur¬ 
suit  and  recapture  of  runaway  slaves  a  regular  business. 
Floras,  III.  19. 

94  Ex.  20:10. 

95  Ex.  23:12. 

96  Deut.  5:14,  15. 

»7  Ex.  12:44;  Deut.  16:11,  14. 


1 26  OUR  MODERN  DEBT  TO  ISRAEL 


circumcision,  were  necessary  preliminaries  in  the 
case  of  proselytes  before  they  could  become  44  chil¬ 
dren  of  the  covenant.”  It  is  deeply  significant  of 
the  spirit  of  tolerance  that  underlay  Hebrew  law 
that  in  the  command  to  observe  the  joyous  festi¬ 
vals  of  Israel,  the  slaves  are  expressly  mentioned 
as  included  in  the  invitation  to  44  rejoice  before 
Jehovah,”  with  44  the  Levite  that  is  within  thy 
gates,  forasmuch  as  he  hath  no  portion,  nor  in¬ 
heritance  with  you.”  9S 

But  the  bondmen  and  the  slaves  were  not  the 
only  unfortunates  whose  welfare  was  an  object  of 
solicitude  to  the  legalists  who  framed  the  pro¬ 
visions  of  the  Holiness  Code.  They  provided  for 
the  continued  freedom  and  independence  of  even 
the  poorest  citizens  through  the  regulation  of 
land  tenure.  Of  the  sacred  soil  of  Palestine,  each 
citizen  had  according  to  the  provisions  of  the  Leviti- 
cal  code,  at  least  theoretically,  a  right  to  an  equal 
share ; 99  and  this  patrimony  was  inalienable. 
Upon  this  point  the  Holiness  Code  was  quite  ex¬ 
plicit.  44  The  land  shall  not  be  sold  in  perpetuity ; 
for  the  land  is  mine:  for  ye  are  strangers  and 
sojourners  with  me.  And  in  all  the  land  of  your 
possession  ye  shall  grant  a  redemption  for  the 
land.  If  thy  brother  be  waxen  poor,  and  sell 
some  of  his  possession,  then  shall  his  kinsman  that 
is  next  unto  him  come,  and  shall  redeem  that 
which  his  brother  hath  sold.  And  if  a  man  have 
no  one  to  redeem  it,  and  he  be  waxen  rich  and  find 

99  Num.  33:54. 


98  Deut.  12 :12. 


THE  PRIESTS 


m 


sufficient  to  redeem  it ;  then  let  him  count  the 
years  of  the  sale  thereof,  and  restore  the  overplus 
unto  the  man  to  whom  he  sold  it;  and  he  shall 
return  unto  his  possession.  But  if  he  be  not  able 
to  get  it  back  for  himself,  then  that  which  he  hath 
sold  shall  remain  in  the  hand  of  him  that  hath 
bought  it  unto  the  year  of  jubilee  :  and  in  the  jubilee 
it  shall  go  out,  and  he  shall  return  unto  his  pos¬ 
session.”  100  Now  in  the  permanent  ownership  of 
the  land  by  those  who  lived  upon  it,  the  citizens 
possessed  the  surest  guarantee  of  their  liberty, 
for  history  shows  nothing  more  clearly  than  that 
those  who  own  the  territories  of  a  state  will  ex¬ 
ercise  the  strongest  influence  over  the  state’s  pub¬ 
lic  affairs.  It  is  possible  for  the  land  to  be  in 
the  possession  of  one,  of  the  few,  or  of  the  many. 
If  the  ruler  owns  the  land,  then  those  who  culti¬ 
vate  the  soil  will  be  wholly  subject  to  his  will;* 
and  the  government  will  be  an  unlimited  monarchy. 
If  the  ownership  of  the  land  is  vested  in  the  few, 
the  real  power  of  government  will  be  in  the  hands 
of  an  aristocracy,  while  those  who  till  the  soil  will 
be  mere  vassals.  If  the  land  be  the  inalienable 
possession  of  the  citizens,  the  true  power  and  au¬ 
thority  of  government  of  the  state  will  be  in  its 
citizens ;  and  the  state  will  be  a  true  democracy. 
Since  the  latter  was  the  case  in  ancient  Israel, 
the  sovereignty  resided  in  the  whole  body  of  the 
people.101 

100  Lev.  25 :23-28. 

101  Wines,  Commentary  on  the  Laws  of  the  Ancient  He - 


128  OUR  MODERN  DEBT  TO  ISRAEL 


That  the  citizenship  of  Israel  did  actually,  in 
many  instances,  control  public  policy,  there  can 
be  no  question.  In  this  connection,  the  method 
of  electing  rulers  attributed  to  Moses  by  the 
Deuteronomist  is  highly  significant:  “  Take  you 
wise  men,  and  understanding,  and  known,  accord¬ 
ing  to  your  tribes,  and  I  will  make  them  heads 
over  you.”  102  Josfiua,  also,  is  represented  103 
as  directing  that  an  election  be  held  to  select  three 
men  from  each  tribe  to  inspect  the  promised  land. 
For  the  office  of  “  judge,”  Jephthah  seems  to  have 
been  elected  by  a  popular  vote.104  These  and 
similar  instances  that  might  be  cited,  indicate 
clearly  enough  that  the  polity  of  ancient  Israel 
embodied  the  principle  of  representative  govern¬ 
ment,  and  that  it  was,  therefore,  especially  adapted 
to  exert  the  strong  influence  that  it  undoubtedly 
has  exerted  in  modern  times  upon  the  development 
of  popular  liberty.105 

To  the  extent  of  this  influence  there  is  abundant 
testimony.  “  It  is  not  without  significance,”  wrote 
Edward  Caird,  “  that  the  great  struggle  for  politi- 

brews,  pp.  401  If  and  Bacon,  History  of  Henry  VII.,  p.  72. 

102  Deut.  1 :13.  The  qualifications  for  holding  office  in 
ancient  Israel  were  few  and  simple.  They  are  given  (Ex. 
18:21)  as  follows:  “Moreover  thou  shalt  provide  out  of  all 
the  people  able  men,  such  as  fear  God,  men  of  truth  hating 
unjust  gain.”  Noble  birth  was  not  one  of  the  requisite 
qualifications. 

103  Josh.  18:4. 

i°4  Judges  11:4-6. 

105  See  Wines  Commentaries  on  the  Laws  of  the  Ancient 
Hebrews,  p.  337. 


THE  PRIESTS 


129 


cal  freedom  in  this  country  was  led  by  men  who 
drew  much  of  their  inspiration  from  the  Old  Tes¬ 
tament,  that  sacred  fountain  of  the  spirit  of  na¬ 
tionality  and  national  religion.  .  .  .  This  free 
religious  spirit  is  one  of  the  main  causes  why 
England  outstripped  all  other  European  coun¬ 
tries  in  its  political  development,  and  became  their 
teacher  in  the  methods  of  free  government.”  106 
The  influence  of  the  Holiness  Code  107  was 
mostly  indirect.  It  was  never  publicly  ratified, 
and  remained  an  example  of  theoretical  legalism. 
Yet,  because  it  gave  expression  to  the  national 
longing  for  popular  holiness,  it  did  exert  a  marked 
influence  upon  later  codes.  In  them,  ceremonial 
righteousness  came  to  be  more  and  more  insisted 
on,  both  as  a  means  of  expiating  past  national 
sins,  and  of  preventing  future  transgressions. 
How  long  the  expansion  of  the  priestly  code  con¬ 
tinued,  we  do  not  precisely  know.  It  certainly 
did  not  cease  with  the  public  ratification  of  it  in 
the  time  of  Nehemiah.108  But  by  the  middle  of 
the  third  century  B.  C.  when  the  translation  of  the 
Hebrew  scriptures  into  Greek  was  made  (The 
Septuagint),  the  canon  of  the  law  had  been  def¬ 
initely  closed. 

The  ultimate  supremacy  of  the  priests  as  lead¬ 
ers  of  religious  thought  in  Israel  marks  the  final 

106  The  quotation  is  taken  from  Keeble,  The  Social  Teach¬ 
ing  of  the  Bible,  p.  28. 

107  Lev.  17-26. 

los  Neh.  10. 


130  OUR  MODERN  DEBT  TO  ISRAEL 


stage  in  the  development  of  the  Jewish  religion. 
So  long  as  the  religion  of  Israel  had  been,  as  the 
prophets  taught,  a  life,  it  could,  and  did,  change 
with  the  developing  spiritual  consciousness  of  the 
race ;  but  when,  after  the  final  codification  of  the 
law,  it  became  a  book-religion,  its  further  develop¬ 
ment  was  arrested.  It  ceased  to  be  a  life  and  be¬ 
came  a  doctrine,  something  to  be  taught  and 
studied.  Henceforth,  no  further  progress  was 
possible;  nor  was  any  attempted.  The  Jewish  reli¬ 
gion  has  remained  practically  unchanged  since  the 
returned  exiles  in  the  time  of  Nehemiah  adopted 
the  law  brought  by  Ezra  from  Babylon.  Its  teach¬ 
ers  have  since  occupied  themselves  with  explaining 
it,  and  applying  it  to  changing  conditions ;  but  the 
law  itself  has  not  changed,  nor  has  the  Jewish  re¬ 
ligion,  of  which  it  was  the  expression,  altered  in 
any  essential  way  through  all  the  succeeding  cen¬ 
turies.109 

Yet  for  the  arrested  development  of  the  Jewish 
religion,  the  law  has  been  blamed  unjustly. 
There  was  in  the  law  no  inherent  reason  why, 
because  of  it,  the  religion  of  Israel  should  have 
become  a  book-religion,  no  longer  a  life,  but  a 
doctrine.  On  the  contrary,  the  law,  by  being 
based  upon  the  broad  principle  of  mutual  for¬ 
bearance  and  love,  was  fitted  to  escape  the 
ephemeralness  characteristic  of  other  legal  sys¬ 
tems,  and  to  become  capable  of  an  almost  infinite 

109  See  Marti,  The  Religion  of  the  Old  Testament,  pp. 
184-188. 


THE  PRIESTS 


131 


variety  of  applications  to  changing  conditions. 
What,  then,  does  account  for  the  fact  that  the 
final  codification  of  the  law  marks  the  end  of  the 
development  of  Hebrew  religion?  The  answer  is 
that  the  law  was  not  observed  intelligently. 
Because  it  was  easier  to  observe  strict  rules  than 
to  apply  moral  principles  to  life,  men  became  more 
concerned  to  fulfill  the  commands  of  the  law  relat¬ 
ing  to  outward  duty  than  to  obey  the  injunctions 
concerning  the  inner  life.  This  tendency  resulted 
in  a  deplorable  externalism.  Righteousness  came 
to  be  synonymous  with  obedience  to  a  mass  of 
precepts  regarding  the  conduct  of  the  outward 
life.  The  teachers  of  the  law  apparently  did  not 
lead  the  people  to  discriminate  between  the  essen¬ 
tials  and  the  non-essentials  —  between  insignifi¬ 
cant  details  of  ceremonial  cleanliness  and  the 
purity  of  heart  that  was  essential  to  the  kind  of 
righteousness  the  law  was  really  designed  to 
promote.110  It  became  just  as  important  for  a 
man  not  to  transgress  the  limits  of  a  Sabbath 
day’s  journey,  which  according  to  the  Talmud 
must  not  exceed  two  thousand  cubits  from  one’s 
dwelling,  as  that  a  man  should  speak  the  truth. 
The  commentators  taught  that  he  who  broke  one 
law  was  ipso  facto  guilty  of  having  broken  the 
whole  code.111  All  the  precepts,  consequently, 
became  equally  binding  and  equally  important. 

no  See  Toy,  Judaism  and  Christianity,  pp.  242-243. 

in  “  For  whosoever  shall  keep  the  whole  law  and  yet 
offend  in  one  point,  he  is  guilty  of  all.”  Jas.  2:10. 


132  OUR  MODERN  DEBT  TO  ISRAEL 


In  the  equalization  of  the  claims  of  ceremonial 
godliness,  social  integrity,  and  purity  of  heart, 
we  have,  not  only  the  explanation  of  the  loss  on 
the  part  of  the  Jews  of  a  just  sense  of  compara¬ 
tive  ethical  values,  but  the  reason  for  the  later 
treatment  of  the  law  by  the  scribes  in  the  Tal¬ 
mud  —  the  voluminous  amplifications  of  the 
Mishna,  and  the  casuistical  commentary  of  the 
Gemara. 

In  this  final  treatment  of  the  law,  we  find  the 
simple  Torah  of  the  priests  expanded  into  a  sys¬ 
tem  of  complicated  and  burdensome  ordinances. 
Take,  for  example,  the  law  regarding  the  obser¬ 
vance  of  the  Sabbath.  The  old  law  had  been  con¬ 
tent  to  enjoin  rest,  and  had  assigned  a  reason  for 
observing  it  as  a  “  holy  ”  (separate)  day.  In 
the  Talmud  the  simple  command  of  the  older  law 
is  buried  beneath  a  mass  of  minute  and  trivial 
regulations.  In  the  fifth  number  of  the  tractate 
dealing  with  Sabbath  observance,112  directions  are 
given  regarding  the  dress  proper  to  the  Sabbath. 
A  man  was  forbidden  to  wear  clothes  that  might 
become  burdensome,  because  to  carry  a  burden 
would  be  to  break  the  Sabbath  rest.113  Hence 
he  could  not  wear  any  ornament  that  could  be 
taken  off  and  carried  in  the  hands,  for  in  that 

112  The  Sabbath  tractate  comes  first  of  the  twelve 
tractates,  which  together  form  the  second  of  the  six  sections 
into  which  the  Mishna  of  the  Jerusalem  Talmud  is  divided. 

113  This  idea  was  based  upon  Ex.  36 :6  in  which  the  com¬ 
mand  of  Moses  that  the  people  bring  no  more  offerings  for 
the  Sanctuary  is  arbitrarily  applied  to  the  observance  of  the 


THE  PRIESTS 


133 


case  it  would  become  a  44  burden.”  A  woman 
could  not  wear  any  ornaments,  at  least  in  the 
street,  lest  her  vanity  might  prompt  her  to  remove 
these  ornaments,  to  show  to  her  companions,  and 
by  carrying  them  in  her  hands,  make  them  a  44  bur¬ 
den.”  She  might  not  wear  false  hair  in  the  street, 
nor  a  pin  in  her  dress,  nor  was  she  allowed  to  look 
in  the  mirror,  lest  seeing  a  white  hair,  she  might 
be  tempted  to  pull  it  out,  which  would  be  to  break 
the  Sabbath  rest.  A  plaster  might  be  worn  to 
prevent  a  wound  from  growing  worse,  but  not  to 
heal  it.  False  teeth  could  not  be  worn  on  the 
Sabbath,  because  of  their  liability  to  fall  out,  in 
wThich  case  they  would  have  to  be  picked  up  and 
carried,  and  thus  become  a  44  burden.”  If  a  man 
had  worn  cotton  in  his  ears  through  the  week,  he 
might  continue  to  wear  it  on  the  Sabbath,  though 
if  the  wad  of  cotton  fell  out  during  the 
day,  he  might  not  replace  it,  for  this  would  be 
44  work.”  114  To  such  puerilities  had  the  teaching 
of  the  Torah  descended,  to  the  neglect  of  the 
44  weightier  matters  of  the  law.”  Surely  the 
leaders  of  the  Israelitish  thought  needed  to  be 
reminded  that  the  Sabbath  was  really  44  made  for 
man,  not  man  for  the  Sabbath.”  115 

Sabbath,  and,  also,  upon  Jer.  17:21,  22  in  which  the  carry¬ 
ing  of  burdens  on  the  Sabbath  is  prohibited. 

ii4  These  details  are  excerpted  from  a  summary  of  the 
fifth  chapter  of  the  tractate  on  the  Sabbath  given  in  Ap¬ 
pendix  XVII.  of  Edersheim’s  The  Life  and  Times  of  Jesus 
the  Messiah,  pp.  781,  782. 

H5  Mark  2:27. 


/'  ' 


CHAPTER  V 

THE  DEBT  OF  ISRAEL  AND  THE 
WORLD  TO  HEBREW  LAW 

While  it  thus  becomes  apparent  that  the  debt 
of  the  world  at  large  to  the  post-canonical  develop¬ 
ment  of  Jewish  legalism  is  negligible,  it  is  equally 
apparent  that  the  extent  of  modern  Israel’s  debt 
to  it  is  considerable.  It  must  not  be  overlooked 
that,  in  spite  of  the  externalism  fostered  by  the 
minute  study  of  the  law,  the  Jewish  people  owe, 
not  only  their  characteristic  definiteness  of  opinion 
and  decision  of  conduct,  but  even  their  continued 
existence  as  a  distinct  race  to  their  devotion  to 
the  Law.  The  extent  of  this  devotion  is  un¬ 
paralleled.  Neither  active  persecution,  nor  social 
ostracism ;  neither  national  humiliation,  nor  polit¬ 
ical  annihilation ;  nor  centuries  of  obloquy,  has 
been  sufficient  to  shake  the  Jew’s  unalterable  faith 
in  the  Torah  as  the  inexorable  law  of  righteous¬ 
ness,  the  categorical  imperative  of  duty.  The  say¬ 
ing  of  the  Talmud,  “  As  a  fish  dies  out  of  the  water, 
so  perishes  a  Jew,  as  soon  as  he  quits  the  Torah,” 
is  still  the  belief  of  Israel.  And  the  law,  it  must 
be  admitted,  has  been  a  powerful  antiseptic.  It 
has  kept  the  Jewish  people  immune  from  the  con¬ 
tagion  of  idolatry,  and  it  has  protected  them  from 

134 


THE  DEBT  TO  HEBREW  LAW  135 

moral  contamination.  The  ethical  ideals  and 
practice  of  the  Jews  throughout  the  dark  ages 
were  higher  than  those  of  the  people  among  whom 
they  lived.  Moreover  their  devotion  to  the  Law 
has  preserved  their  racial  existence.  The  little 
Jewish  race  would  long  since  have  disappeared, 
absorbed  by  stronger  races  (as,  indeed,  the  ten 
tribes  did  disappear,  assimilated  by  the  oriental 
races  among  whom  they  settled  after  their  de¬ 
portation)  had  they  not  been  upheld  by  a  stronger 
racial  consciousness  developed  during  the  post- 
exilic  period  through  the  growth  of  legalism. 
It  was  their  adherence  to  the  ideal  of  a  “  self- 
centered,  well-balanced,  intelligent,  and  strenuous 
moral-religious  life  ”  that  both  differentiated  the 
Jews  from  others  with  whom  they  might  other¬ 
wise  have  mingled,  and  at  the  same  time  protected 
them  from  the  effects  of  a  compulsory  conformity 
which  stronger  peoples  would  fain  have  imposed 
upon  them.  Nothing  but  the  will  to  live  could 
have  preserved  the  Jewish  race  amid  oppression 
sufficient  to  have  destroyed  a  people  not  upheld 
by  a  strong  sense  of  its  own  racial  individuality. 
It  was  the  devotion  of  the  race  to  a  definite  ideal 
embodied  in  its  law  that,  by  creating  and  sustain¬ 
ing  its  race  consciousness,  supplied  the  will  to  live. 

The  feeling  of  the  pious  Israelite  towards  the 
“  law  of  Jehovah  ”  is  beautifully  set  forth  in  the 
one  hundred  and  nineteenth  Psalm  —  the  great 
“  Psalm  of  the  Law.”  Here  we  find  expressed  the 
hope  of  later  Israel  to  make  God’s  law  the  govern- 


136  OUR  MODERN  DEBT  TO  ISRAEL 


ing  principle  of  conduct,  to  surrender  all  self- 
willed  thoughts  and  aims,  to  subordinate  the  whole* 
life  to  the  will  of  God  as  embodied  in  the  Torah. 
The  poem  is  especially  noteworthy  for  its 
acknowledgment  of  the  strength  which  the  Law 
gives  to  Israel  in  the  midst  of  surrounding 
heathenism,  and  to  the  faithful  Israelite  in  the 
presence  of  prevailing  laxity  of  faith  and  morals. 

Forever,  O  Jehovah, 

Thy  word  is  settled  in  heaven. 

Thy  faithfulness  is  unto  all  generations: 

Thou  hast  established  the  earth  and  it  abideth. 

They  abide  this  day  according  to  thine  ordinances; 

For  all  things  are  thy  servants. 

Unless  thy  law  had  been  my  delight, 

I  should  have  perished  in  mine  affliction. 

I  will  never  forget  thy  precepts; 

For  with  them  thou  hast  quickened  me. 

I  am  thine,  save  me; 

For  I  have  sought  thy  precepts. 

Not  alone  is  Israel’s  obligation  to  the  Law,  for 
Christendom  also  owes  to  the  legalists  of  Israel  a 
debt  almost  incalculable.  This  debt  to  the  priests 
has  been  hitherto  immensely  underestimated. 
People  have  supposed  that,  since  the  priests  were 
ritualists,  and  because  ritualists  are  more  prone 


THE  DEBT  TO  HEBREW  LAW  137 


to  look  backward  than  forward,  that  they  were 
interested  chiefly  in  the  traditions  of  the  past, 
and  that  they  did  not  concern  themselves  with 
the  future  progress  of  the  race.  It  has  been 
thought  that  they  were  mostly  occupied  with  the 
forms  of  worship,  and  that  they  cared  very  little 
about  applying  moral  principles  to  life  —  that, 
indeed,  they  cared  not  at  all  about  moral  prin¬ 
ciples  except  so  far  as  they  were  embodied  in  the 
Law.  We  have  ignored  the  fact  that,  though  the 
site  of  the  Temple  is  now  occupied  by  a  mosque, 
and  though  the  Law  as  a  legal  system  is  as  obso¬ 
lete  as  the  laws  of  the  Medes  and  Persians,  the 
priests  have  bequeathed  to  us  institutions  that  are 
still  vital,  ideals  of  conduct  that  are  still  inspiring, 
and  conceptions  of  God  and  of  man’s  duty  toward 
him  that  have  not  been,  and  that  never  can  be 
superseded.1 

The  most  important  of  the  modern  institutions 
that  go  back  for  their  origion  to  Israel’s  priests  2 
is  the  church.  There  can  be  no  question  that  the 
church  as  an  organization  is  an  offspring  of  Old 
Testament  Judaism.  Post-exilic  Judaism,  it  will 
be  remembered,  was  not  a  kingdom,  but  a  church. 
The  ruling  power  was  not  a  monarchy,  but  a  hier¬ 
archy.  It  was  natural,  therefore,  that  the  early 

1  Some  account  of  our  debt  to  Israel’s  law  may  be  found 
in  my  article  in  “The  Biblical  World”  for  July,  1912. 

2  A  suggestive  list  of  examples  of  these  various  forms  of 
indebtedness  is  given  in  Harper’s  Priestly  Element  in  the 
Old  Testament,  pp.  269,  270.  From  this  list  the  following 
instances  are  borrowed. 


138  OUR  MODERN  DEBT  TO  ISRAEL 


Christians,  most  of  whom  were  Jews,  should  have 
thought  of  themselves  as  continuing  the  old 
organization,  and  that  they  should  have  tried, 
so  far  as  possible,  to  retain  the  distinctive  charac¬ 
teristics  of  the  old  ecclesiastical  order.3  That  the 
early  church  considered  itself  as  made  up  of  the 
ideal  representatives  of  the  true  Israel,  the  spirit¬ 
ual  descendants  of  the  twelve  sons  of  Jacob,  is 
shown  by  the  fact  that  the  apostles,  who  formed 
the  nucleus  of  it,  were  twelve  in  number,  corres¬ 
ponding  to  the  twelve  tribes  of  the  chosen  people. 
That  such  was  their  thought  is  evidenced,  also, 
by  the  fact  that  our  modern  church  service  of 
prayer,  song,  and  exhortation  comes  directly  from 
the  Temple  and  synagogue  service.4  A  Gentile 
visiting  a  modern  synagogue  cannot  fail  to  be 
impressed  with  the  similarity,  so  far  as  form  is 
concerned,  of  the  service  to  that  of  a  Christian 
church.  The  explanation  of  the  similarity  lies  in 
the  common  origin  of  both.  The  early  Christians 
adapted  the  synagogue  service  to  their  uses  by 

3  See  Pressense,  Early  Years  of  Christianity,  pp.  46  ff. 

4  See  Weiszacker,  The  Apostolic  Age  of  the  Christian 
Church,  Vol.  II.,  pp.  246,  254,  258. 

“  It  may  with  tolerable  certainty  be  supposed  that  the 
Jewish  Christians,  particularly  the  congregation  at  Jeru¬ 
salem,  observed  the  whole  ceremonial  law  with  its  weekly 
and  yearly  festivals,  and  did  not  renounce  the  cultus  of  the 
Old  Testament  theocracy  till  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem 
in  the  year  70.” 

Schaff,  History  of  the  Apostolic  Church,  p.  546. 

See,  also,  Fisher,  History  of  Christian  Doctrine,  Part  I., 
Period  I.,  Chap.  I. 


THE  DEBT  TO  HEBREW  LAW  139 


introducing  into  it  certain  modifications,  chief 
among  which  was,  of  course,  the  eucharist.  Such 
a  service  among  the  early  Christians  is  described 
by  Justin  Martyr  in  his  Apology  for  the  Chris¬ 
tians ,  addressed  to  the  Emperor  Antoninus  Pius, 
and  written  between  130  and  150  A.  D. .  This 
passage  seems  worthy  of  quotation,  both  because 
it  shows  the  close  connection  between  the  syn¬ 
agogue  and  the  Christian  church  service,  and 
because  of  its  interest  as  the  earliest  extant 
account  of  a  Christian  religious  exercise. 

“  And  on  the  day  called  Sunday,  there  is  an 
assembly  in  one  place  of  all  who  live  in  cities  or 
in  the  country,  and  the  memoirs  of  the  apostles 
or  the  writings  of  the  prophets  are  read  so  long 
as  time  permits ;  then,  when  the  reader  has  ceased, 
the  president  gives  the  exhortation  to  the  imita¬ 
tion  of  these  good  things.  Then  we  all  stand  up 
together  and  offer  prayer ;  and  as  we  before  said, 
when  our  prayer  is  ended,  bread  is  brought,  and 
wine  and  water,  and  the  president  in  like  manner 
sends  up  prayers  and  thanksgivings  according  to 
his  ability,  and  the  congregation  assents,  saying 
the  Amen.  And  the  participation  of  the  things 
over  which  thanks  have  been  given  is  to  each  one, 
and  to  those  who  are  absent  a  portion  is  sent  by 
the  hands  of  the  deacons.  And  they  who  are  well- 
to-do  and  willing  give  each  one  as  he  wills, 
according  to  his  discretion,  and  what  is  collected 
is  deposited  with  the  president,  and  he  himself 
succors  the  orphans  and  the  widows  and  those  who 


140  OUR  MODERN  DEBT  TO  ISRAEL 


are  in  want  through  sickness  or  other  cause,  and 
those  who  are  in  bonds,  and  the  strangers  who  are 
sojourning;  and  in  a  word  takes  care  of  all  who 
are  in  need.” 

It  is  not  at  all  to  be  wondered  at,  considering 
the  close  affinity  of  this  service  to  the  regular  syn¬ 
agogue  exercises,  that  the  apostle  James  applies  5 
the  name  “  synagogue  ”  to  the  worshipping  as¬ 
semblies  of  the  early  Christians. 

Another  of  our  institutions  that  we  owe  to 
priestly  influence  is  that  of  the  Lord’s  day, 
or  Sunday,  which  is  the  offspring  of  the  Jew¬ 
ish  Sabbath.  The  early  church,  as  was  natural, 
in  view  of  the  fact  that  the  most  influen¬ 
tial  members  of  it  were  Jews,  strictly  observed  the 
law  regarding  the  observance  of  the  Sabbath. 
Indeed,  strict  Sabbath  observance  continued  in 
the  Eastern  church,  perhaps  because  the  propor¬ 
tion  of  Jews  was  greater  in  the  East  than  in  the 
West,  till  the  fifth  century.  Even  now  the  Chris¬ 
tians  of  Abyssinia  persist  in  the  practice  of 
Sabbath  observance,  together  with  certain  other 
Jewish  rites  taught  them  by  Jewish  Christian 
missionaries  of  the  Alexandrian  church.  Just 
when  the  observance  of  the  Jewish  Sabbath  was 
transferred  to  Sunday,  we  do  not  precisely  know. 
Justin,  the  church  father  of  the  second  century, 
in  his  Apology  for  the  Christians ,  speaks  of  the 
transfer  as  an  accomplished  fact,  and  justifies  it 
on  two  grounds  —  first,  that  on  Sunday  God 
s  James  2:2. 


'■$ 

THE  DEBT  TO  HEBREW  LAW  141 

created  the  world,  and  the  light;  and  secondly, 
that  on  the  first  day  of  the  week  Christ  rose  from 
the  dead.  This  explanation  appealed  to  the 
religious  feeling  of  Christendom  to  such  a  degree 
that  it  has  ever  since  been  universally  regarded 
as  the  true  reason  for  the  change.  We  find  it 
in  modern  Christian  hymnology,  as  in  the  familiar 
hymn  by  Christopher  Wordsworth,  written  in 
1825,  which  contains  these  lines, 

On  thee  at  the  Creation, 

The  light  first  had  its  birth; 

On  thee,  for  our  salvation, 

Christ  rose  from  depths  of  earth; 

The  first  law  either  ecclesiastical  or  civil,  en¬ 
joining  the  Sabbatical  observance  of  Sunday  was 
the  edict  of  Constantine  in  321  A.  D.  This 
famous  edict  prohibited  all  work  on  Sunday, 
except  that  of  tilling  the  soil.  After  this,  the 
tendencies  toward  Sabbatarianism  (the  identifi¬ 
cation  of  the  Christian  with  the  Jewish  institu¬ 
tion)  developed  rapidly.  In  338  the  third  Council 
of  Orleans  recommended  abstinence  from  agricul¬ 
tural  labor  on  Sunday,  “  that  the  people  might 
have  more  leisure  to  go  to  church  and  say  their 
prayers.”  Such  abstinence  was  expressly  en¬ 
joined  about  the  end  of  the  ninth  century  by  the 
Emperor  Leo,  “  the  Philosopher.”  By  the  legal 
establishment  of  Sunday  as  a  Sabbath,  the  con¬ 
fusion  of  the  Christian  with  the  Jewish  institution 
would  seem  to  have  been  completed.  But  it  was 


142  OUR  MODERN  DEBT  TO  ISRAEL 


reserved  for  the  English  Puritans  to  carry  Sab¬ 
batarianism  to  its  extreme  limit,  by  adding  to  the 
observance  of  Sunday  an  austerity  by  which 
neither  it  nor  the  Sabbath  keeping  of  the  Jews 
had  ever  hitherto  been  marked.  The  Directory  of 
Public  Worship  and  the  Confession  of  Faith  as 
formulated  by  the  Westminster  Assembly,  and 
approved  by  Parliament  in  1646,  not  only  enjoined 
abstinence  from  labor,  but  strictly  prohibited 
recreation  as  a  transgression  of  the  fourth  com¬ 
mandment. 

Of  the  religious  festivals  bequeathed  to  us  by 
the  priests,  the  most  important  is  Easter.  The 
origin  of  this  festival  in  the  Passover  feast  is  some¬ 
what  obscured  for  English  speaking  people 6  by 
the  name,  which  is  the  Anglo-Saxon  Eastre,  and 
is  a  survival  of  the  old  Teutonic  mythology. 
According  to  Bede  the  name  is  derived  from  Os- 
tara,  the  Anglo-Saxon  goddess  of  the  spring,  to 
whom  the  fourth  month,  called  “  Eostre  moneth  99 
was  dedicated.  A  letter  of  Ceolfrid,7  abbot  of  the 
monastery  of  Peter  and  Paul  at  Darrow,  to  the 
King  of  the  Piets  explains  at  considerable  length 
the  connection  between  the  Passover  and  the 
Christian  feast.  44  There  are  three  rules  in  the 
sacred  writings,”  he  says,  44  on  account  of  which 

6  The  origin  of  the  festival  is  much  more  apparent  for 
other  than  English  speaking  peoples,  for  the  Greek  word 
II aaxa  has  passed  directly  into  most  modern  languages. 
The  French  word  is  Paques;  the  Scotch,  Pasch;  the  Dutch, 
Paschen;  the  Danish,  Paaske. 

7  Bede’s  Ecclesiastical  History ,  Bk.  V.,  Chap.  21. 


THE  DEBT  TO  HEBREW  LAW  143 


it  is  not  lawful  for  any  human  authority  to  change 
the  time  of  keeping  Easter  .  .  .  ;  two  whereof  are 
divinely  established  in  the  law  of  Moses ;  the  third 
is  added  in  the  Gospel  by  means  of  the  passion  and 
resurrection  of  our  Lord.  .  .  .  For  that  same 
night  in  which  the  people  of  Israel  were  delivered 
out  of  Egypt  by  the  blood  of  the  lamb  is  the  very 
same  in  which  all  the  people  of  God  were  by 
Christ’s  resurrection,  delivered  from  eternal  death. 
Then,  on  the  morning  of  the  Lord’s  day,  they 
should  celebrate  the  first  day  of  the  Paschal  fes¬ 
tival;  for  that  is  the  day  on  which  our  Lord,  with 
much  joy  of  pious  revelation,  made  known  the  glory 
of  his  resurrection.”  In  identifying  the  Easter 
festival  as  the  Christian  successor  of  the  Pass- 
over,  Ceolfrid  merely  stated  what  was  true  accord¬ 
ing  to  the  common  consent  of  Christendom  all 
through  the  Christian  centuries  preceding.  In 
the  early  centuries  of  the  Christian  era,  all  those 
in  both  the  eastern  and  the  western  churches  who 
believed  the  Christian  Passover  to  be  a  commemo¬ 
ration  of  Christ’s  death,  maintained  the  custom  of 
holding  the  Easter  festival  on  the  day  prescribed 
for  the  Jewish  Passover,  the  fourteenth  day  of 
the  first  month,  that  is,  the  lunar  month  of  which 
the  fourteenth  day  either  falls  on,  or  next  fol¬ 
lows  the  vernal  equinox.  Not  until  the  Council  of 
Nice  in  325  was  the  date  of  the  festival  finally 
settled  for  the  whole  church  in  opposition  to  the 
opinion  of  those  who  persisted  that  the  date  of  the 
Jewish  fixed  that  of  the  Christian  festival. 


144  OUR  MODERN  DEBT  TO  ISRAEL 


Closely  connected  with  the  origin  of  Easter  in 
the  Passover  feast  is  that  of  the  eucharist.  It 
was  while  eating  the  Passover  that  Jesus  instituted 
the  rite  which,  among  his  followers  was  to  super¬ 
sede  the  older  feast.8  In  speaking  of  “  my  blood 
of  the  covenant  which  is  shed  for  many,”  Jesus 
seems  to  have  desired  to  connect  this  new  rite  with 
the  old  sacrificial  feast  in  which  the  worshippers, 
by  partaking  of  the  sacrificial  meal,  partook  also 
of  the  blessing  which  the  sacrifice  was  to  secure. 
The  Lord’s  Supper  is,  therefore,  a  continuation 
of  the  Jewish  Paschal  feast. 

In  the  apostolic  period  it  was  celebrated  daily, 
at  least  in  circumstances  where  daily  worship  was 
possible.  Certainly  such  was  the  custom  in  the 
church  at  Jerusalem  where  the  celebration  of  the 
Lord’s  Supper  was  the  closing  act  of  the  daily 
social  feast.  As  celebrated  by  the  early  Chris¬ 
tians,  the  Lord’s  Supper,  or  “  the  breaking  of 
bread,”  as  they  more  frequently  designated  the 
rite,  seems  to  have  been  a  very  simple  and  natural 
observance.  In  the  Jerusalem  church  it  was  con¬ 
nected  with  the  community  of  goods,  the  believers 
considering  themselves  as  one  household  of  faith, 
and  was  simply  a  part  of  the  communal  evening 

8  The  Passover  feast  is  now  almost  entirely  obsolete. 
Since  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  by  Titus,  when  the  Jews 
were  gathered  there  to  keep  this  feast,  it  has  not  been  ob¬ 
served  by  the  Hebrews,  though  the  feast  of  unleavened  bread 
which  was  a  part  of  the  Passover  is  still  kept.  It  is  said, 
however,  that  the  colony  of  Samaritans  still  eat  the  Pass- 
over  on  Mount  Gerizim. 


THE  DEBT  TO  HEBREW  LAW  145 


meal.  It  was  not  preceded  by  any  special  reli¬ 
gious  exercises.9  We  are  told  that  “  day  by  day 
(kuO3  rjfxevav ) ,  continuing  steadfastly  with  one 
accord  in  the  Temple,  and  breaking  bread  at  home, 
they  took  their  food  with  gladness  and  singleness 
of  heart.  .  .  10 

Another  of  the  church’s  sacraments  derived 
directly  from  the  priest  is  baptism,  the  solemn 
ceremony  of  reception  and  incorporation  into  the 
communion  of  the  visible  church.  In  spite  of 
some  assertions  to  the  contrary,11  most  scholars 
see  in  Christian  baptism  an  adaptation  of  the  bap¬ 
tism,  which,  with  circumcision  and  sacrifice, 
accompanied  the  reception  of  Gentiles  into  the 
family  of  Israel.12 

When  the  “  stranger  ”  wished  to  become  a 
“  child  of  the  covenant,”  he  had  to  fulfill  three 
conditions.  He  must  be  circumcised ;  he  must  be 
baptized;  he  must  offer  a  sacrifice.  Of  these  three 
rites,  baptism  seems  to  have  been  regarded  as 
most  important.13  According  to  the  established 

9  The  Protestant  “  preparatory  lecture  ”  finds  its  author¬ 
ization  in  I  Cor.  11:28. 

10  Acts  2 :46. 

11  “  Regarded  from  the  apostolic  point  of  view,  baptism 
cannot  be  connected  .  .  .  with  the  baptism  administered  to 
proselytes  to  Judaism.”  Pressense,  Early  Years  of  Chris¬ 
tianity,  p.  375. 

12  The  first  scholar  to  recognize  this  was  Augusti  in  his 
Manual  of  Christian  Archaelogy,  II.,  326.  This  was  pub¬ 
lished  in  1836.  He  traced  a  complete  parallel  between 
Christian  baptism  and  that  of  Jewish  proselytes. 

is  In  the  case  of  female  proselytes  only  baptism  and  the 


146  OUR  MODERN  DEBT  TO  ISRAEL 


custom  in  the  baptism  of  proselytes,  three  of  those 
who  had  instructed  him  in  the  law  acted  as  his 
sponsors,  and  were  called  “  the  fathers  of  the  bap¬ 
tism.”  Together  they  conducted  him  to  a  pool. 
While  he  stood  naked,  and  up  to  his  neck  in  the, 
water,  the  great  commandments  of  the  law  were 
read  to  him.  To  these  he  promised  obedience; 
and  a  blessing  was  pronounced  upon  him.  Then 
he  plunged  beneath  the  surface,  being  careful  to 
be  entirely  submerged.  Upon  his  coming  out  of 
the  water,  he  was  regarded  as  a  new  man  in 
reference  to  his  past ;  that,  with  its  defilements, 
being  looked  upon  as  buried  in  the  waters  of  bap¬ 
tism. 

The  link  between  baptism  as  a  priestly  cere¬ 
mony  and  baptism  as  a  Christian  sacrament  is 
furnished  by  John  the  Baptist.  In  his  use  of 
baptism,  he  was  influenced  in  part  by  the  customs 
of  ceremonial  washings  enjoined  by  the  law,  and 
in  part  by  the  custom  of  baptizing  proselytes. 
The  main  aspect  of  baptism  as  he  employed  it  was 
as  a  preparation  for  the  kingdom  of  God.  It  was 
a  baptism  of  repentance ;  and  was  intended  as  a 
symbol  of  the  desire  on  the  part  of  those  who 
received  it  to  seek  purification,  like  aliens  who  had 
lived  in  defilement,  in  order  that  they  might  obtain 
admission  among  the  people  who  awaited  the 
immediate  realization  of  the  ancient  hope  of  Israel, 
< —  the  only  hope  that  remained  since  the  scepter 

sacrifice  were  obligatory;  and  after  the  destruction  of  the 
Temple,  the  latter  was  wholly  dispensed  with. 


THE  DEBT  TO  HEBREW  LAW  147 


had  departed  from  Judah,  the  hope  of  “  the  King¬ 
dom.”  14  From  the  baptism  of  repentance  which 
enrolled  the  pious  Israelite  in  the  number  of  those 
who  expected  the  realization  of  Israel’s  long 
deferred  hope,  to  the  Christian  baptism  as  we  find 
it  on  the  Day  of  Pentecost  is  but  a  step.  The 
latter  was  the  solemn  ceremony  of  reception  into 
the  communion  of  those  who  believed  that  in 
Jesus  of  Nazareth  the  hope  of  Israel  had  been  ful¬ 
filled. 

It  is  not  institutionally,  however,  that  we  are 
most  indebted  to  the  priests.  We  owe  to  them 
certain  conceptions  of  God  and  of  what  he  requires 
of  men  which  are  as  potent  to-day  as  they  were 
twenty-five  hundred  years  ago.  Chief  among  these 
conceptions  is  that  of  the  holiness  of  God,  an  idea 
which  is  in  its  beginnings  attributable  to  the 
prophets,  but  which  was  developed  and  emphasized 
by  the  priests.  In  their  thought,  holiness  was  the 
supreme  attribute  of  God.  The  root  idea  in  the 
word  seems  to  be  that  of  distance  or  separation ; 
and  hence  it  suggests,  in  the  priestly  use  of  it  as 
an  attribute  of  deity,  the  contrast  between  the 
divine  and  the  human.  It  is  undoubtedly  true 
that  in  the  early  use  of  the  word  “  holy,”  it  did 
not,  when  applied  either  to  God  or  to  men,  ex¬ 
press  a  moral  attribute,  but  rather  as  applied  to 
God,  the  idea  of  majesty,  and  as  applied  to  men 

14  For  a  slightly  different  interpretation  of  the  significance 
of  the  baptism  of  John  see  Edersheim,  The  Life  and  Times 
of  Jesus,  Vol.  I.,  p.  274. 


148  OUR  MODERN  DEBT  TO  ISRAEL 


or  things,  the  idea  of  belonging  to  God,  or  of  be¬ 
ing  dedicated  to  him.  Yet  it  is  equally  evident 
that  the  idea  of  holiness  was  progressively  spirit¬ 
ualized  till  it  came  to  be  thought  of  more  and  more 
as  a  moral  quality.  Consequently,  the  phrase, 
44  the  Holy  One,”  which  originally  had  meant  the 
lofty,  the  majestic  one,  who  dwelt  on  high  and 
was  separated  in  space  from  men,  gradually  came 
to  mean,  the  morally  lofty  one,  separated  in  char¬ 
acter  from  impure  and  sinful  men.15  Similarly, 
the  word  44  holy  ”  as  applied  to  men  changed  its 
meaning  to  correspond  to  an  enlarged  and  clari¬ 
fied  conception  of  the  character  of  God.  Though 
it  originally  meant  only  belonging  to  God,  or  ded¬ 
icated  to  him,  thus  expressing  not  a  quality,  but  a 
relation,  it  gradually  changed  its  meaning,  as  the 
loftier  idea  of  Jehovah’s  character  reacted  on 
it,  till  it  came  to  mean  morally  pure,  ethically 
clean. 

This  holiness,  in  the  sense  of  separation  from 
sin,  is,  in  the  priestly  thought,  not  only  an  attri¬ 
bute  of  God ;  it  is  also  his  one  and  constant  de¬ 
mand  of  his  people.  They,  too,  are  to  be  44  holy.” 
This  means  that  they  are  to  be  in  a  proper  phys¬ 
ical  condition  to  come  into  his  holy  place,  and  so 
like  him  in  character  as  to  be  able  to  come  into  his 
spiritual  presence.  Ceremonial  cleanness  and 
purity  of  heart  are,  then,  what  God  demands  of 
men.  Again  and  again  in  the  Torah  is  this  de¬ 
ls  See  Davidson,  Theology  of  the  Old  Testament,  pp. 
252  ff. 


THE  DEBT  TO  HEBREW  LAW  149 


mand  for  a  holiness  in  man  to  correspond  to  that 
of  God  reiterated.16  The  injunction,  “  Sanctify 
yourselves,  therefore,  and  be  ye  holy,  for  I  am 
holy,”  meant,  separate  yourselves  from  impurity 
—  that  which  contaminates  and  degrades.  This 
included,  of  course,  abstinence  from  that  which 
would  cause  ceremonial  uncleanness,  but  it  in¬ 
cluded,  also,  such  moral  purity  as  would  fit  a  man 
to  enter  God’s  holy  place. 

Who  shall  ascend  into  the  hill  of  the  Lord? 

And  who  shall  stand  in  his  holy  place? 

He  that  hath  clean  hands  and  a  pure  heart; 

Who  hath  not  lifted  up  his  soul  unto  falsehood, 
And  hath  not  sworn  deceitfully. 

He  shall  receive  a  blessing  from  Jehovah, 

And  righteousness  from  the  God  of  his  salvation.17 

Such  separation  from  physical  and  moral  im¬ 
purity  was  to  be  secured  by  the  keeping  of  the 
law.18  Nor  was  this  reverent  regard  for  the  law 
as  a  means  of  acquiring  holiness  wholly  unreason¬ 
able,  considering  to  what  extent  the  Levitical 
codes  dealt  with  the  subject  of  moral  purity. 
Such  injunctions  as  “  Thou  shalt  not  hate  thy 
brother  in  thine  heart,”  19  and  “  Thou  shalt  not 
take  vengeance,  nor  bear  any  grudge  against  the 
children  of  thy  people ;  but  thou  shalt  love  thy 

16  Lev.  11:44;  19:2;  20:26.  Cf.,  also,  20:7;  21:6-8. 

17  Ps.  24:3-5.  See,  also,  Ps.  15:1-5. 

is  In  Num.  15:40  the  keeping  of  the  law  is  recommended 
as  a  means  of  acquiring  holiness. 

is  Lev.  19:17. 


150  OUR  MODERN  DEBT  TO  ISRAEL 


neighbor  as  thyself,”  20  clearly  show  that  the  law 
was  not  what  it  has  sometimes  been  supposed,  a 
mass  of  arbitrary  formalism,  but  that  it  set  up  a 
standard  of  kindliness,  and  of  stainless  probity 
such  as  no  other  legislator  ever  thought  of  doing. 

Strange  indeed  have  been  the  mis-statements 
which  have  been  made  regarding  the  Hebrew  law 
by  writers  who  have  been  misled  by  a  failure  to 
recognize  that  the  law  was  more  than  44  a  mass  of 
prescriptions  ...  an  attempt  to  define  all  the 
beliefs  and  acts  of  life,”  21  that  as  a  matter  of  fact 
it  did  attempt  to  44  supply  the  motive  of  con¬ 
duct,”  22  and  that  the  motive  it  supplied  in  the 
command  44  Thou  shalt  love  thy  neighbor  as  thy- 
self  ”  was  lofty  enough  to  satisfy  one  who  an¬ 
nounced  that  He  came,  not  to  destroy,  but  to  com¬ 
plete  the  law.23 

Because  Hebrew  law  was  a  law  of  kindness ;  be¬ 
cause  it  was  based,  not  upon  a  recognition  of  the 
rights  of  men,  but  of  their  duties ;  and  because  it 
depended  for  its  sanction  upon  the  appeal  that  it 

20  Lev.  19:18. 

21  Toy,  Judaism  and  Christianity ,  p.  239.  In  the  same 
volume,  p.  227,  we  find  this  assertion,  “  Of  inward  sins, 
transgressions  of  the  law  of  purity  and  love,  which  belong 
to  the  heart,  nothing  is  said;  this  was  a  domain  which  the 
national  legislation  did  not  undertake  to  enter.” 

22  “  The  law  does  not  in  itself  supply  the  motive  of  con¬ 
duct, —  tends,  indeed,  by  emphasizing  the  outward  standard, 
to  attract  the  will  from  that  inward  love  and  devotion  which 
is  the  mainspring  of  the  moral-religious  life.”  Toy,  Juda¬ 
ism  and  Christianity ,  p.  240. 

23  The  word  translated  fulfill  (tt Xrjpuaai),  Matt.  5:17, 
really  means  to  complete,  or  fill  out. 


THE  DEBT  TO  HEBREW  LAW  151 


made  to  the  conscience  of  the  citizen ;  it  possessed 
a  timelessness  of  appeal  that  accounts  for  its  in¬ 
fluence  upon  the  religious  institutions,  and  in  gen¬ 
eral,  upon  the  religious  thought  of  our  modern 
life. 


CHAPTER  VI 


THE  SAGES 

The  arrangement  of  the  literature  in  our  Bi¬ 
bles  is  somewhat  misleading  in  that  it  does  not, 
like  the  arrangement  made  by  the  Hebrews  them¬ 
selves,  reflect  their  estimate  of  the  relative  re¬ 
ligious  value  of  the  three  departments  into  which 
they  divided  it.  These  three  departments  or 
groups  were,  first,  the  law,  including  not  merely 
the  Torah,  or  corpus  juris  of  the  race,  but  the 
historical  books  written  by  the  priests  or  under 
priestly  influence ;  secondly,  the  prophets,  and  in¬ 
cluding  not  only  the  major  and  minor  prophets, 
but  the  prophetic  histories  as  well;  and,  thirdly, 
the  “  writings  ”  (K’thubim)  which  included  the 
remainder  of  the  canonical  books  of  the  Old  Testa¬ 
ment.  Most  sacred,  as  the  source  of  the  national 
character  and  worship,  and  therefore,  coming  first 
in  the  arrangement  of  the  books  of  the  Hebrew 
canon,  was  the  law.  Second  in  reverential  regard, 
and,  consequently,  occupying  the  second  or  middle 
place  in  the  Hebrew  scriptures,  came  the  proph¬ 
ets  ;  while  the  “  writings  ”  about  the  canonicity,  or 
religious  value,  of  some  of  which  there  was  pro¬ 
longed  and  bitter  controversy,  occupied  the  third 

152 


THE  SAGES 


153 


place  in  the  regard  of  the  Hebrew  people, 
and  likewise  the  third  place  in  the  sequence. 
That  such  an  arrangement  accurately  reflected 
the  popular  estimate  of  the  relative  ethical  worth 
of  the  three  groups  is  attested  by  the  fact  that 
in  the  Jewish  schools  of  the  first  century 
A.  D.  the  pupils  in  their  study  of  the  scrip¬ 
tures  proceeded  from  the  book  of  Leviticus 
to  the  rest  of  the  Pentateuch,  thence  to  the 
Prophets,  and  lastly  to  the  Hagiographa.1  This 
Hebrew  method  of  classifying  their  literature  re¬ 
flected,  not  alone  the  popular  estimate  of  the  eth¬ 
ical  worth  of  the  three  groups,  but  not  less  accu¬ 
rately  the  gradual  development  of  a  sense  of  the 
value  of  individual  life  and  character. 

With  the  individual  neither  the  priests  nor  the 
prophets  had  been  much  concerned.  As  the  re¬ 
ligious  code  of  the  nation,  the  law  had  to  do  with 
the  individual  chiefly  as  a  member  of  a  social  and 
religious  organism.  Though  the  individual  was 
regarded  as  an  inseparable  part  of  the  community, 
no  question  of  individual  or  private  right  as 
against  the  community  could  arise,  for  the  supreme 
duty  of  each  citizen  was  to  love  God  and  his 
brother.  The  law-givers  of  Israel,  recognizing 
the  truth  that  righteousness  exalteth  a  nation,  but 

1  See  Edersheim,  Sketches  of  Jewish  Social  Life  in  the 
Days  of  Christ,  p.  136.  Further  proof  is  afforded  by  Luke 
24:44,  and  by  the  prologue  to  the  apocryphal  book  of  Eccle- 
siasticus. 


154  OUR  MODERN  DEBT  TO  ISRAEL 


that  sin  is  a  reproach  to  any  people,  were  concerned 
chiefly  that  Israel  should  become  so  holy  a  nation 
that  in  the  midst  of  it  Jehovah  himself  might  be 
content  to  dwell.  The  individual  was  to  find  his 
salvation  in  duly  fulfilling  his  place  in  the  civic, 
social,  and  political  life  of  his  people  —  a  people 
that  should  belong  wholly  to  Jehovah.2  Nor  did 
prophecy,  for  the  most  part,  recognize  the  indi¬ 
vidual,  except  as  a  component  part  of  the  state. 
Certainly  all  the  prophets  of  the  eighth  century 
were  preachers,  not  to  the  individual  conscience, 
but  to  the  nation.  Jeremiah  of  the  seventh  cen¬ 
tury  was  the  first  to  consider  the  relations  of  the 
individual  man  to  God.  Up  to  his  time,  the  sense 
of  individual  responsibility  had  not  emerged ;  but 
in  the  thirty-first  chapter  of  Jeremiah  the  prophet 
clearly  shows  that  he  looked  forward  to  a  Messi¬ 
anic  age  in  which  Jehovah  would  have  direct  rela¬ 
tions  with  every  individual  Israelite.3  Even  after 
the  time  of  Jeremiah,  the  sense  of  the  responsibil¬ 
ity  of  the  individual  developed  slowly.  To  the 
slowness  of  this  development  must  be  attributed 
the  late  appearance  of  the  hope  of  individual  im¬ 
mortality.  It  was  Israel  and  not  the  Israelite 
who  was  immortal,  because  the  Israelite  was  ab- 

2  The  principle  of  individual  responsibility,  to  be  sure, 
does  find  expression  in  Deuteronomy  (See  Deut.  24:16), 
which  was  written,  it  is  to  be  noted,  under  the  influence  of 
the  prophets. 

3  See  Montefiore,  The  Hihhert  Lectures,  1892,  pp.  221,  222. 
The  formulation  of  the  sense  of  individual  moral  responsi¬ 
bility  is  found,  also,  in  Ezekiel  (See  Ezek.  18:2-4). 


THE  SAGES 


155 


sorbed  in  the  nation.4  It  is  in  the  work  of  the  wise 
men  that  the  sense  of  individual  responsibility  finds 
full  expression,  for  it  was  they  who  emphasized 
the  supreme  importance  of  individual  character. 
Nothing  on  earth  was,  the  sages  held,  worth  an 
instant’s  worry  except  the  momentous  question 
what  a  man  is.  It  is  not,  they  believed,  what  a 
man  has,  nor  even  what  he  does,  that  really  exalts 
or  degrades  him,  but  only  what,  behind  the  pos¬ 
session  and  beneath  the  overt  act,  the  man  in  the 
light  of  his  own  conscience  sees  himself  to  be. 
The  purpose  underlying  all  the  teaching  of  the 
wise  was  the  upbuilding  of  personal  character,  the 
promotion  of  individual  righteousness.  In  dis¬ 
tinction  from  the  priests,  who  were  the  ritualists, 
and  from  the  prophets,  who  were  the  idealists  of 
Israel,  the  sages  were  Israel’s  moral  philosophers. 

That  the  sages,  or  “  the  Wise,”  were  recog¬ 
nized  at  least  in  later  Israel,  as  constituting  a  spe¬ 
cial  class  co-ordinate  with  the  priests  and  the 
prophets,  and  clearly  differentiated  from  them,  is 
indicated  by  a  passage  in  Jeremiah,  and  by  a  sim¬ 
ilar  one  in  Ezekiel.5  In  the  former  we  read,  “  for 
the  law  shall  not  perish  from  the  priest,  nor  coun¬ 
sel  from  the  wise,  nor  the  word  from  the  prophet  ” ; 
and  in  the  latter,  “  Mischief  shall  come  upon  mis¬ 
chief,  and  rumour  shall  be  upon  rumour;  and  they 
shall  seek  a  vision  of  the  prophet ;  but  the  law  shall 

4  See  Addis,  Hebrew  Religion,  pp.  115,  116,  and  G.  A. 
Smith,  Modern  Criticism  and  the  Preaching  of  the  Old 
Testament,  pp.  291,  292. 

s  Jer.  18:18  and  Ezek.  7:26. 


156  OUR  MODERN  DEBT  TO  ISRAEL 


perish  from  the  priest,  and  counsel  from  the  an¬ 
cients;”  As  a  class,  the  sages  seem  to  have  at¬ 
tained  to  influence  only  after  the  Exile,  when 
prophecy  became  gradually  silent  and  finally 
ceased.  Perhaps  because  the  prophets  saw  that 
the  sages  were  destined  to  supersede  them,  they 
did  not  look  upon  the  boasted  wisdom  of  the  wise 
with  favor.  On  the  contrary,  they  charge  them 
with  conceit  and  immorality.  44  Woe  unto  them 
that  are  wise  in  their  own  eyes,”  cries  Isaiah, 
44  and  prudent  in  their  own  sight,”  and  again  he 
predicts  that,  44  the  wisdom  of  their  wise  men  shall 
perish,  and  the  understanding  of  their  prudent 
men  shall  be  hid.”  6  Jeremiah  is  equally  denun¬ 
ciatory.  44  The  wise  men,”  he  says,7  44  are 
ashamed,  they  are  dismayed  and  taken :  lo,  they 
have  rejected  the  word  of  the  Lord;  and  what  man¬ 
ner  of  wisdom  is  in  them?  ” 

The  dislike  of  the  prophets  for  the  sages 
seems  not  to  have  been  returned  in  kind.  The 
wise  man  speaks  respectfully  of  prophecy. 
44  Where  there  is  no  vision,”  he  says,s  44  the  people 
cast  off  restraint.”  Persistently  the  sages  reaf¬ 
firmed  at  least  one  of  the  characteristic  ideas  of 
prophecy  —  that  ceremonial  is  a  poor  substitute 

6  Is.  5:21,  and  29:14. 

7  Jer.  8:9.  See,  also,  Jer.  4:22  and  9:23. 

Yet  the  prophets’  manner  of  expression  was,  nevertheless, 
obviously  influenced  by  the  style  of  the  sages.  Examples 
are:  Is.  28:23-29;  29:24;  33:11.  See,  also,  Cheyne,  Job 
and  Solomon,  pp.  121  ff. 

*  Prov.  29 :18. 


THE  SAGES 


157 


for  righteousness  of  life,  asserting  that  “  The  sac¬ 
rifice  of  the  wicked  is  an  abomination  to  the  Lord : 
but  the  prayer  of  the  upright  is  his  delight.”  9 
With  the  idealism  of  the  prophets,  however,  they 
had  little  sympathy.  They  say  nothing  of  a  fu¬ 
ture  golden  age,  and  seem  never  to  have  shared 
with  the  prophets  the  hope  of  a  kingdom  of  God 
on  earth.  Their  general  attitude  of  suspicion 
toward  both  the  religious  idealism  and  the  polit¬ 
ical  radicalism  of  the  prophets  is  clearly  suggested 
by  the  advice  they  give  to  the  young  man  seeking 
wisdom :  “  My  son,  fear  thou  the  Lord  and  the 

king:  and  meddle  not  with  them  that  are  given  to 
change.”  10 

With  the  priests,  the  sages  had  much  more  in 
common  —  their  political  conservatism,  and  their 
respect  for  legal  precedent.  Their  friendly  rela¬ 
tions  with  the  priests  are  to  be  accounted  for  by 
the  probability  that,  as  a  class  of  religious  teach¬ 
ers,  the  wisdom  school  developed  from  among  the 
priests,  the  guardians  of  the  law.  Now  the  law 
had  two  sides  —  the  ritual  or  liturgical,  and  the 
civil  or  moral  side.  In  post-exilic  times,  the 
priests  became  identified  with  the  ritual  law,  while 
the  study  of  the  law  on  its  moral  side  became  the 
province  of  the  sages.  Though  the  sages  soon 
emancipated  themselves  from  the  limitations  of  the 
Hebrew  law,  expanding  their  outlook,  partly  un¬ 
der  Greek  influence,  to  include  universal  moral 

»  Prov.  15:8.  See,  also,  Prov.  21:3,  27;  and  16:6. 

loprov.  24:21. 


158  OUR  MODERN  DEBT  TO  ISRAEL 


truth,  they  certainly  started  with  the  assumption 
that  the  law  is  the  way  that  leads  to  God.  Prac- 
ical  ethics,  consequently,  became  their  principal 
field. 

The  aim  and  function  of  the  sage  is  clearly  set 
forth  in  the  apocryphal  book  of  Ecclesiasticus.11 
Here  we  are  told :  “  He  will  seek  out  the  wisdom 

of  all  the  ancients,  and  will  be  occupied  in  prophe¬ 
cies.  He  will  keep  the  discourse  of  the  men  of 
renown,  and  will  enter  in  amidst  the  subtleties  of 
parables.  He  will  seek  out  the  hidden  meaning  of 
proverbs,  and  be  conversant  with  the  dark  sayings 
of  parables.  He  will  serve  among  great  men,  and 
appear  before  him  that  ruleth :  he  will  travel 
through  the  land  of  strange  nations,  for  he  hath 
tried  good  things  and  evil  among  men.  He  will 
apply  his  heart  to  resort  early  to  the  Lord  that 
made  him,  and  will  make  supplication  before  the 
Most  High,  he  will  open  his  mouth  in  prayer,  and 
make  supplication  for  his  sins.  If  the  great  Lord 
will,  he  shall  be  filled  with  the  spirit  of  under¬ 
standing:  he  shall  pour  forth  the  words  of  his 
wisdom,  and  in  prayer  give  thanks  unto  the  Lord. 
He  shall  direct  his  counsel  and  knowledge,  and  in 
his  secrets  shall  he  meditate.  He  shall  shew  forth 
the  instruction  that  he  hath  been  taught,  and  shall 
glory  in  the  law  of  the  covenant  of  the  Lord. 
Many  shall  commend  his  understanding;  and  so 
long  as  the  world  endureth,  it  shall  not  be  blotted 
out :  his  memorial  shall  not  depart,  and  his  name 


11  Ecclus.  39:1-11. 


THE  SAGES 


159 


shall  live  from  generation  to  generation.  Na¬ 
tions  shall  declare  his  wisdom,  and  the  congrega¬ 
tion  shall  tell  out  his  praise.  If  he  continue,  he 
shall  leave  a  greater  name  than  a  thousand:  and  if 
he  die,  he  addeth  thereto.” 

Though  we  know  very  little  about  the  person¬ 
ality  or  methods  of  work  of  the  sages,  we  infer 
that  they  corresponded  fairly  well  to  the  descrip¬ 
tion  of  a  scholar  that  Doctor  Johnson  put  into 
the  mouth  of  Imlac.  “  To  talk  in  public,  to 
think  in  solitude,  to  read  and  to  hear,  to  inquire 
and  to  answer  inquiries,  is  the  business  of  a 
scholar.”  12  There  was  nothing  academic  about 
the  Hebrew  sage ;  he  was  a  popular  teacher  of 
practical  morality.  The  wise  seem,  like  the  ear¬ 
lier  prophets,  to  have  received  fees  for  their  serv¬ 
ices.  44  Wherefore,”  asks  one  of  them,13  44  is  there 
a  price  in  the  hand  of  a  fool  to  get  wisdom,  seeing 
he  hath  no  heart  to  it?  ”  The  Book  of  Ecclesias- 
ticus  ends  with  an  address  to  the  student  of  wis¬ 
dom  that  implies  an  investment  of  money  as  well 
as  of  effort. 

Put  your  neck  under  the  yoke, 

And  let  your  soul  receive  instruction: 

She  is  hard  at  hand  to  find. 

Behold  with  your  eyes, 

How  that  I  laboured  but  a  little, 

And  found  for  myself  much  rest. 

Get  your  instruction  with  a  great  sum  of  silver, 
And  gain  much  gold  by  her.14 

12  j RasselaSy  Chap.  8.  is  Prov.  17:16.  i*  Ecclus.  51:26  ff. 


160  OUR  MODERN  DEBT  TO  ISRAEL 


Whether  the  sages  exercised  a  kind  of  professional 
function  in  Israel,  giving  examinations  and  con¬ 
ferring  degrees ;  whether,  like  the  later  rabbis, 
they  occupied  an  honored  official  position  in  the 
educational  life  of  the  nation,  we  have  no  means 
of  knowing.  That  they  constituted  an  influential 
class,  co-ordinate  in  popular  estimation  with  the 
prophets  and  the  priests  is,  however,  clearly  evi¬ 
dent.15  They  taught  at  first  orally,  rather  than 
through  the  written  word.  When  they  wrote, 
they  did  so  sometimes  anonymously,  more  often 
under  a  pseudonym  —  generally  that  of  Solo¬ 
mon  ;  16  and  always  their  utterances,  whether  oral 
or  written,  were  of  things  that,  to  use  Bacon’s 
phrase,  “  come  home  to  men’s  business  and  bos¬ 
oms.”  17  Like  Bacon’s  Essays,  again,  “  They 
handle  those  things  wherein  both  men’s  lives  and 
their  persons  are  most  conversant  .  .  .  not  vul¬ 
gar,  but  of  a  nature  whereof  a  man  shall  find  much 
in  experience  and  little  in  books.”  18 

Our  English  word  “  wisdom  ”  is  but  an  inade¬ 
quate  rendering  of  the  Hebrew  word  khokmah. 
The  root  meaning  of  this  word  is  to  fasten  or  hold 
fast,  and  it  includes  much  more  than  our  word 

is  Jer.  18:18. 

10  Solomon  became  identified  with  the  wisdom  literature  in 
exactly  the  same  way  as  Moses  did  with  the  legal  literature, 
and  as  David  did  with  the  lyric  poetry;  so  that  the  phrase 
“  a  proverb  of  Solomon  ”  came  to  mean  merely  “  a  wise 
proverb.” 

it  “  Epistle  Dedicatory  ”  to  edition  of  1625. 

is  Bacon,  “To  the  Prince  of  Wales.” 


THE  SAGES 


161 


wisdom  or  its  synonyms,  prudence,  sagacity, 
knowledge,  learning.  The  Septuagint  word  coc/aa 
fairly  well  translates  it,  for  this  is  a  word  of  varied 
meaning  representing  not  only  erudition,  but  skill 
in  matters  of  common  life,  sound  judgment  in 
practical  affairs,  political  sagacity.  The  Greek 
adjective  o-oc/>os  (wise)  was  applied  to  a  man  who 
excelled  his  fellows  in  any  kind  of  skill,  either  in¬ 
tellectual  or  manual.  Thus  the  designation  might 
be  applied  to  a  philosopher  or  to  a  hedger  and 
ditcher  with  equal  propriety,  for  it  implied  only 
an  insight  into  the  facts  of  life  and  a  mastery  of 
them.  Now  this  was  exactly  what  Hebrew  wis¬ 
dom,  regarded  as  a  human  quality,  also  implied. 
Wisdom  in  the  Hebrew  view  was  to  understand 
God’s  works  and  ways,  and  to  turn  one’s  knowl¬ 
edge  of  them  to  practical  account.  44  The  fact 
that  practical  ethics  ultimately  appropriated  the 
technical  name  of  wisdom  ought  not  to  blind  us,” 
says  Professor  Cheyne,19  44  to  the  larger  connota¬ 
tion  of  the  same  word,  which  throws  so  much  light 
on  the  deeply  religious  view  of  life  prevalent  among 
the  Israelites.”  God  44  maketh  wisdom  abundant 
as  Pishon,  and  as  Tigris  in  the  days  of  new  fruits ; 
that  maketh  understanding  full  as  Euphrates,  and 
as  Jordan  in  the  days  of  harvest,”  says  Jesus  Ben 
Sirach,20  so  all-inclusive  is  it.  Wisdom  44  is  an 
unspotted  mirror  of  the  workings  of  God  ”  and 
44  reacheth  from  one  end  of  the  world  to  the  other 

I0  Job  and  Solomon,  p.  118. 

20  Ecclus.  24:25,  26. 


162  OUR  MODERN  DEBT  TO  ISRAEL 


with  full  strength,  and  ordereth  all  things  gra¬ 
ciously.”  21  She  is  the  friend  of  the  king  on  the 
throne,22  and  of  the  workman  at  his  bench.23  How 
to  govern  a  state,  or  a  household,24  and  how  to 
manage  a  farm;  25  how  to  behave  in  the  presence  of 
a  ruler,26  and  how  to  treat  a  fool ; 27  all  are  mat¬ 
ters  that  come  within  the  scope  of  wisdom.  It  in¬ 
cluded,  also,  what  we  should  call  natural  science. 
Of  Solomon,  who  was  regarded  as  the  representa¬ 
tive  and  embodiment  of  wisdom,  it  was  said :  28  “  he 
spake  of  trees,  from  the  cedar  that  is  in  Lebanon 
even  unto  the  hyssop  that  springeth  out  of  the 
wall:  he  spake  also  of  beasts,  and  of  fowl,  and  of 
creeping  things,  and  of  fishes.”  All  the  works  of 
the  visible  creation  were  regarded  as  objects  of 
reverent  study  as  revelations  of  the  divine  wisdom. 
“  O  Lord,  how  manifold  are  thy  works !  ”  cried  the 
Psalmist,29  “  in  wisdom  hast  thou  made  them  all.” 
By  the  observation  of  these  “  works  ”  men  were  to 
understand  God’s  ways,  for  God  was  in  their 
thought  the  source  of  all  wisdom.  In  the  ardent 
panegyric  upon  wisdom  found  in  Proverbs,  we  are 
told: 


The  Lord  by  wisdom  founded  the  earth; 

By  understanding  he  established  the  heavens. 
By  his  knowledge  the  depths  were  broken  up, 
And  the  skies  drop  down  the  dew. 


21  The  Wisdom  of  Solomon,  7:26 
and  8:1. 

22  Prov.  8:15,  16. 

23  Ex.  31:2-6;  I  Kings  7:13,  14. 

24  Prov.  31:10  If. 


25  Prov.  10:4,  5. 

26  Prov.  25 :6,  7. 

27  Prov.  26:4,  5. 

28  1  Kings  4:33. 
2»  Ps.  104:24. 


THE  SAGES 


163 


My  son,  let  not  them  depart  from  thine  eyes; 

Keep  sound  wisdom  and  discretion: 

So  shall  they  be  life  unto  thy  soul. 

And  grace  to  thy  neck.30 

By  observation  of  even  the  humblest  of  God’s  crea¬ 
tures  men  might  learn  wisdom, 

Go  to  the  ant,  thou  sluggard; 

Consider  her  ways,  and  be  wise: 

Which  having  no  chief, 

Overseer,  or  ruler, 

Provideth  her  meat  in  the  summer, 

And  gathereth  her  food  in  the  harvest.31 

Yet,  while  wisdom  included  within  its  range  all 
God’s  creation,  the  department  of  study  that  of¬ 
fered  the  largest  return  of  wisdom  was  human  con¬ 
duct.  It  was  in  the  sphere  of  practical  ethics 
that  the  sages  mostly  worked.  Enlightened 
worldly  wisdom,  dealing  with  the  results  of  an  ob¬ 
servation  of  human  life,  extended  if  not  minute, 
was  characteristic  of  Hebrew  wisdom.  It  was 
never  broadly  speculative.  The  sage  never,  like 
the  modern  philosopher,  started  with  a  question. 
It  never  occurred  to  him  to  ask  Who  is  God? 
Rather,  he  started  with  an  axiom  —  given  a  God 
knowable,  just  and  wise,  then  wisdom  is  to  know 
Him,  so  far  as  possible  through  observation  of  His 
works  and  ways,  and  to  turn  that  knowledge  to 
practical  account  in  our  relations  with  Him,  and 
with  our  fellow  men.  To  these  practical  philoso- 

30  Prov.  3:19-52.  3i  Prov.  6:6-8. 


164  OUR  MODERN  DEBT  TO  ISRAEL 


phers,  no  less  than  to  Pope,  the  proper  study  of 
mankind  was  man  —  and  man  in  his  social  rela¬ 
tions.  Wisdom’s  call  was  to  man  considered  as  a 
member  of  a  community,  never  to  man  as  an  iso¬ 
lated  individual. 

Doth  not  wisdom  cry, 

And  understanding  put  forth  her  voice? 

In  the  top  of  high  places  by  the  way, 

Where  the  paths  meet,  she  standeth; 

Beside  the  gates,  at  the  entry  of  the  city. 

At  the  coming  in  at  the  doors,  she  crieth  aloud: 
Unto  you,  O  men,  I  call; 

And  my  voice  is  to  the  sons  of  men.32 

To  harmonize  human  life  with  nature  by  con¬ 
stantly  connecting  both  with  God,  was  the  end 
and  aim  of  Hebrew  wisdom.33 

Closely  connected  with  this  quality  of  inclusive¬ 
ness  in  Hebrew  wisdom  is  what  one  might  call  its 
cosmopolitanism.  Wisdom  is  of  all  Hebrew  liter¬ 
ature  least  distinctively  Hebraic.  Though  be¬ 
longing  mostly  to  the  period  of  legalism,  when  the 
law  was  revered  as  the  inerrant  guide  of  life,  there 
is  in  all  the  wisdom  books  no  mention  of  Sab¬ 
bath,  nor  synagogue,  nor  circumcision.34  More¬ 
over,  wisdom  is  the  only  department  of  Hebrew 
thought  that  was  recognized  as  having  any  analo- 

32  Prov.  8:1-4. 

33  See  Horton,  “  Proverbs  ”  (Expositor's  Bible )  pp.  13,  14. 

34  Sacrifice  is,  however,  referred  to  Prov.  15:8;  Ecclus. 
34:18-20;  Eccles.  5:1.  Tithes  are  mentioned  in  Prov.  3:9; 
vows  in  Eccles.  5:4. 


THE  SAGES 


165 


gies  or  connection  with  the  world  outside  of  Pales¬ 
tine.  Of  the  centers  of  wisdom  outside  Israel, 
Egypt,35  Edom,36  and  Tyre37  seem  to  have  been 
regarded  as  the  most  important.  Just  how  much 
relation  there  was  with  these  foreign  centers  of 
wisdom  we  have  no  means  of  knowing.  The  au-> 
thor  of  the  apocryphal  book  of  Baruch  denies 
that  Hebrew  wisdom  was  like  that  of  other  kindred 
peoples,38  but  probably,  as  Cheyne  suggests,39  this 
denial  represents  the  intolerant  spirit  of  Macca- 
bean  Judaism.  Certain  it  is  that  so  unlimited  by 
racial  interests  are  some  of  the  wisdom  books,  so 
universal  in  their  appeal,  that  at  least  one  of  them 
has  been  thought  by  some  not  to  have  been  written 
by  a  Hebrew  at  all.40  Nor  is  it  without  signifi¬ 
cance  that  Job  himself  lived,  not  in  Judea,  nor 
even  in  Palestine,  but  in  Uz,  on  the  border  of  the 
great  plains  eastward  of  that  country.  Eliphaz, 
the  eldest  of  the  three  friends  that  came  to  condole 
with  Job,  and  their  leader  and  spokesman,  came 
from  Teman  in  the  land  of  Edom.  It  is  entirely 
consonant  with  the  universality  generally  charac¬ 
teristic  of  the  wisdom  books  that  in  Job  and 
Ecclesiastes  the  word  Elohim  or  Eloah  is  usually 
substituted  for  the  distinctively  Hebraic  name 

35  I  Kings  4:30. 

36  Ob.  8;  Jer.  49:7. 

37  Ezek.  28:2,  3. 

38  Baruch  3:22,  23. 

39  Job  and  Solomon,  p.  118. 

40  See  Carlyle’s  remarks  on  the  authorship  of  Job  in  the 
“  Hero  as  Prophet.” 


166  OUR  MODERN  DEBT  TO  ISRAEL 


Jahveh.  The  former  are  names  more  general  in 
their  application,  and  might  be  applied  to  any 
foreign  deity. 

It  would  be  strange  indeed,  in  view  of  the  cosmo¬ 
politanism  of  Hebrew  wisdom,  if  there  were  no 
traces  of  foreign  influence  upon  it.  As  a  matter 
of  fact  the  influence  of  foreign  wisdom  cults  is 
quite  apparent.  One  sees  it  even  in  Proverbs, 
the  earliest  of  the  wisdom  books.  The  personifi¬ 
cation  of  wisdom  in  the  eighth  chapter,  in  which 
the  divine  wisdom  is  represented  as  a  separate  ex¬ 
istence  outside  of  Jehovah,  is  thoroughly  un-He- 
braic,  and  is  entirely  inconsistent  with  the  stern 
monotheism  of  Israel’s  creed,  which  had  become 
firmly  established  since  the  time  of  the  popular 
endorsement  of  the  book  of  Deuteronomy.  Such 
an  inconsistency  can  be  explained  only  as  a  result 
of  the  influence  of  Greek  philosophy.  According 
to  the  Stoics,  the  powers  of  the  divine  essence  dif¬ 
fused  throughout  the  world  (the  kolvoI  ewoiai), 
are  regarded  as  having  a  separate  existence  of 
their  own.  Only  under  the  influence  of  such  an 
idea,  could  the  personification  of  God’s  wisdom 
find  a  place  in  the  religious  thought  of  a  people 
whose  fundamental  belief  was  expressed  in  the  un¬ 
equivocal  statement,  44  Hear,  O  Israel :  the  Lord 
our  God  is  one  Lord.”  41  In  the  later  books  of 
wisdom,  the  influence  of  Greek  philosophy  is  still 
more  apparent.  Ecclesiastes,  to  be  sure,  though 
formerly  thought  to  show  the  effect  of  the  Stoic 


4i  Deut.  6 :4. 


THE  SAGES 


167 


and  Epicurean  philosophy,  appears  now,42  in  the 
light  of  recent  discoveries  of  Babylonian  inscrip¬ 
tions,43  to  have  been  written  under  foreign  Semitic 
influence.  We  know  that  the  Jewish  colony  in  Baby¬ 
lon  called  the  Gouliouth  was  extremely  influential  in 
post-Exilic  times.  That,  through  it,  Babylonian 
culture  should  have  affected  Hebrew  thought  seems 
entirely  possible ;  and,  since  the  old  Babylonian 
philosophy  contained  all  that  was  formerly  con¬ 
sidered  Greek  in  Ecclesiastes,  it  seems  entirely 
probable  that  the  foreign  elements  in  the  book  are 
in  origin  Semitic  rather  than  Aryan.  Not  so  are 
the  foreign  elements  in  The  Wisdom  of  Solomon. 
Here  we  find  a  number  of  characteristically  Greek 
ideas,  as,  for  example,  the  Stoic  notion  of  wisdom 
as  the  all-pervading  power,  which  is  thus  expressed : 

For  she  that  is  the  artificer  of  all  things  taught  me, 
even  wisdom. 

For  there  is  in  her  a  spirit  quick  of  understanding, 
holy, 

Alone  in  kind,  manifold, 

Subtile,  freely  moving, 

Clear  in  utterance,  unpolluted, 

Distinct,  unharmed, 

Loving  what  is  good,  keen,  unhindered, 

42  “  The  book  of  Ecclesiastes  represents  an  original  de¬ 

velopment  of  Hebrew  thought,  thoroughly  Semitic  in  its 
point  of  view,  and  quite  independent  of  Greek  influences.” 
Barton,  “  Ecclesiastes  ”  ( International  Critical  Commen¬ 

tary ),  p.  43. 

43  This  is  a  fragment  of  the  “  Gilgamesh  Epic,”  written 
about  2000  B.  C. 


168  OUR  MODERN  DEBT  TO  ISRAEL 


Beneficent,  loving  toward  man, 

Stedfast,  sure,  free  from  care. 

All-powerful,  all-surveying, 

And  penetrating  through  all  spirits 

That  are  quick  of  understanding,  pure,  most  subtile: 

For  wisdom  is  more  mobile  than  any  motion; 

Yea,  she  pervadeth  and  penetrateth  all  things  by  rea¬ 
son  of  her  pureness.44 

Several  of  the  ideas  in  this  book  are  evidently 
Platonic,  as,  for  example,  that  of  primitive  amor¬ 
phous  matter, 

For  thine  all-powerful  hand, 

That  created  the  world  out  of  formless  matter,45 

that  of  the  pre-existence  of  the  soul, 

Now  I  was  a  child  of  parts,  and  a  good  soul  fell  to 
my  lot ;  46 

and  that  of  the  four  cardinal  virtues, 

The  fruits  of  wisdom  are  virtues, 

For  she  teach eth  soberness  and  understanding,  right¬ 
eousness  and  courage.47 

In  view  of  these  relations,  it  appears  that  He¬ 
brew  wisdom  was  a  product  neither  wholly  of  He¬ 
brew  nor  even  of  Semitic  thought,  nor  designed 
solely  for  the  Hebrew  race,  but  that  it  was  not  lim- 

44  The  Wisdom  of  Solomon,  7 :22-24. 

45  The  Wisdom  of  Solomon,  11:17. 

46  The  Wisdom  of  Solomon,  8:19. 

47  The  Wisdom  of  Solomon,  8:7. 


THE  SAGES 


169 


ited  by  nationality,  nor  theology,  nor  forms  of 
worship. 

Yet,  although  Hebrew  wisdom  assimilated  for¬ 
eign  influences,  the  sages  were  unquestionably  jus¬ 
tified  in  maintaining  that  their  wisdom  was  dis¬ 
tinctively  Hebraic.  The  most  striking  assertion 
of  this  truth  appears  in  the  form  of  a  soliloquy 
put  into  the  mouth  of  Wisdom.  It  is  found  in  the 
Book  of  Ecclesiasticus,48  and  is  as  follows: 

I  came  forth  from  the  mouth  of  the  Most  High, 

And  covered  the  earth  as  a  mist. 

I  dwelt  in  high  places. 

And  my  throne  is  in  the  pillar  of  the  cloud. 

Alone  I  compassed  the  circuit  of  heaven, 

And  walked  in  the  depth  of  the  abyss. 

In  the  waves  of  the  sea,  and  in  all  the  earth, 

And  in  every  people  and  nation,  I  got  a  possession. 

With  all  these  I  sought  rest; 

And  in  whose  inheritance  shall  I  lodge? 

Then  the  Creator  of  all  things  gave  me  a  com¬ 
mandment  ; 

And  he  that  created  me  made  my  tabernacle  to 
rest. 

And  said.  Let  thy  tabernacle  be  in  Jacob, 

And  thine  inheritance  in  Israel. 

He  created  me  from  the  beginning  before  the  world; 

And  to  the  end  I  shall  not  fail. 

In  the  holy  tabernacle  I  ministered  before  him; 

And  so  was  I  established  in  Sion. 

Now  in  what  consisted  the  uniqueness  of  this 


48  Ecclus.  24:3-10. 


170  OUR  MODERN  DEBT  TO  ISRAEL 


wisdom  that  was  “  established  in  Sion?  ”  How 
did  it  differ  from  the  wisdom  that  was  established 
in  Memphis,  or  Babylon,  or  that  which  was  estab¬ 
lished  in  Athens?  From  all  these  it  differed  fun¬ 
damentally,  in  that  it  was  practical  in  its  aims  — 
in  that  it  was  enlightened  worldly  wisdom,  a  kind 
of  inspired  common  sense.  Pharaoh’s  wise  men 
were  interested  in  the  occult,  in  the  portents  of 
dreams,  and  in  divination.  The  stories  of  Joseph, 
who  became  an  expert  interpreter  of  dream  ora¬ 
cles,  and  who,  after  his  marriage  to  the  daughter 
of  the  priest  of  On,  practiced  water-divination,49 
illustrates  the  Egyptian  sages’  interest  in  the  eso¬ 
teric.  No  less  pretentious  was  the  boasted  wis¬ 
dom  of  Chaldea’s  seers.  They  were  astrologers 
and  magicians,  who  sought  the  hidden  meanings  of 
things  in  the  stars,  and  who  would  have  despised 
the  wisdom  that  the  Hebrews  prized  —  the  wis¬ 
dom  of  the  commonplace  and  the  familiar. 

From  the  modern  scientific  spirit,  Hebrew  wis¬ 
dom  differed  no  less  essentially  in  that  it  recog¬ 
nized  invariably  the  divine  origin  of  all  true  wis¬ 
dom.  In  the  mind  of  the  Hebrew  sage  there  could 
be  no  conflict  between  science  and  religion,  because 
to  him  all  knowledge  had  its  source  in  God.  Rea¬ 
son  and  revelation  were  not  to  him  mutually  op¬ 
posed,  nor  subversive  one  of  the  other.  To  the 
sages,  wisdom  meant  the  well  trained  mind,  the 
disciplined  will,  the  skilled  hand,  working  together 
for  the  end  of  living  a  sane  and  normal  life.  For 

49  Gen.  41:45;  44:15. 


THE  SAGES 


171 


entering  upon  such  a  course  of  self-discipline,  the 
one  condition  was  humility. 

The  fear  of  the  Lord  is  the  beginning  of  knowledge: 
But  the  foolish  despise  wisdom  and  instruction. 

Such  was  the  announcement  at  the  very  beginning 
of  the  first  of  the  wisdom  books  of  the  Old 
Testament.50  It  strikes  the  key-note  of  all  the 
wisdom  teaching.  As  humility  is  the  beginning  of 
wisdom,  so  the  end  is  reverence  for  God  as  the 
source  of  and  giver  of  all  understanding.51 
Wisdom  was  regarded  as  the  gift  of  God,  be¬ 
stowed  upon  only  those  who  pleased  Him. 
“  For  to  the  man  that  pleaseth  him,”  says  the 
author  of  Ecclesiastes,  “  God  giveth  wisdom,  and 
knowledge,  and  joy.”  52  It  was  given  in  answer 
to  prayer,  as  to  Solomon ;  53  and  never,  except  as  a 
reward  for  diligent  effort.  The  searcher  after 
wisdom  must  “  apply  his  heart,”  must  “  seek  her 
as  silver.”  In  Proverbs  54  we  read : 

My  son,  if  thou  wilt  receive  my  words, 

And  lay  up  my  commandments  with  thee; 

So  that  thou  incline  thine  ear  unto  wisdom, 

And  apply  thine  heart  to  understanding; 

50  Prov.  1:7;  cf.  Prov.  9:10;  14:27;  16:17;  24:5,  and  Ps. 
111:10. 

51  “  This  is  the  end  of  the  matter ;  .  .  .  fear  God,  and  keep 
his  commandments,  for  this  is  the  whole  duty  of  man.” 
Eccles.  12:13. 

52  Eccles.  2:26.  Cf.  Prov.  2:6  and  Dan.  2:21. 

63  I  Kings  3:9. 

54  Prov.  2:1-5. 


172  OUR  MODERN  DEBT  TO  ISRAEL 


Yea,  if  thou  cry  after  discernment, 

And  lift  up  thy  voice  for  understanding; 

If  thou  seek  her  as  silver, 

And  search  for  her  as  for  hid  treasures; 

Then  shalt  thou  understand  the  fear  of  the  Lord, 
And  find  the  knowledge  of  God. 

The  unaided  search  for  wisdom  is  always  unavail¬ 
ing.  She  never  reveals  herself  except  to  the  hum¬ 
ble  and  diligent  seeker.  He  who  seeks  her  must 
be,  she  insists, 

Watching  daily  at  my  gates. 

Waiting  at  the  posts  of  my  doors.55 

By  searchers  less  in  earnest,  wisdom  is  not  “  found 
in  the  land  of  the  living.”  Only  44  God  under- 
standeth  the  way  thereof,”  and  reveals  it  to  whom 
He  will. 

But  where  shall  wisdom  be  found? 

And  where  is  the  place  of  understanding? 

Man  knoweth  not  the  price  thereof ; 

Neither  is  it  found  in  the  land  of  the  living. 

•  •••••• 

God  understandeth  the  way  thereof. 

And  he  knoweth  the  place  thereof. 

•  •••••• 

Then  did  he  see  it,  and  declare  it; 

He  established  it,  yea,  and  searched  it  out. 

And  unto  man  he  said, 

Behold,  the  fear  of  the  Lord,  that  is  wisdom; 
And  to  depart  from  evil  is  understanding.56 

55Prov.  8:34;  cf.  8:17.  56  Job  28:12,  13,  23,  27. 


THE  SAGES 


173 


Yet  in  the  quest  for  wisdom,  man  was  not  left 
wholly  without  guidance.  There  was  the  sage, 
who  taught  how  to  master  the  secrets,  to  fulfil  the 
duties,  and  meet  the  temptations  of  life.  A  pic¬ 
ture  of  such  a  sage  Job  gives  us,  as  he  recalls  what 
he  was  “  When  the  friendship  of  God  was  upon  ” 
his  “  tent.” 

When  I  went  forth  to  the  gate  unto  the  city, 

When  I  prepared  my  seat  in  the  broad  place, 

The  young  men  saw  me  and  hid  themselves, 

And  the  aged  rose  up  and  stood; 

The  princes  refrained  talking. 

And  laid  their  hand  on  their  mouth; 

The  voice  of  the  nobles  was  hushed, 

And  their  tongue  cleaved  to  the  roof  of  their  mouth. 
For  when  the  ear  heard  me,  then  it  blessed  me; 

And  when  the  eye  saw  me,  it  gave  witness  unto  me: 

•  •••••• 

I  put  on  righteousness,  and  it  clothed  me: 

My  justice  was  as  a  robe  and  a  diadem.67 

Moreover,  there  was  the  law,  which  seems  to 
have  been  regarded  as  of  the  highest  disciplinary 
value.  “  Whoso  keepeth  the  law,”  they  said,  “  is 
a  wise  son.”  58  The  law  was  apparently  looked 
upon  as  a  kind  of  fingerpost  to  point  men  from 
evil  to  righteousness,  and  from  folly  to  under¬ 
standing. 

When  wisdom  changed  from  the  oral  to  the 
written  form,  it  adopted  as  its  characteristic  liter- 

67  Job  29:7-11,  14;  cf.  Eccles.  12:9,  10. 

68  Prov.  28:7;  cf.  Deut.  4:6. 


174  OUR  MODERN  DEBT  TO  ISRAEL 


ary  mold  what  the  Hebrews  called  the  MashaL 
Though  the  word  is  usually  translated  “  prov¬ 
erb,”  the  mashal  was  something  more  than  merely 
an  adage,  or  short,  pithy  saying.  The  root-mean¬ 
ing  of  the  word  is  a  likeness,  or  comparison,  or  si¬ 
militude.  The  word  came  to  have  the  rather  com¬ 
prehensive  meaning  that  it  did  from  the  fact  that 
the  wisdom  teachers  taught  so  largely  by  analogy. 
In  its  simplest  form,  as  we  find  it  represented  in 
the  oldest  part  of  the  book  of  Proverbs,59  we  find 
it  to  consist  of  a  single  couplet,  or  epigram  of  two 
lines.  The  parallelism  is  prevailingly  antithetic, 
like, 

A  wise  son  maketh  a  glad  father: 

But  a  foolish  son  is  the  heaviness  of  his  mother. 

When  we  examine  these  epigrams,  we  see  at  once 
that  they  are  not  the  rough-hewn  proverbial  say¬ 
ings  of  the  country  folk,  but  that  they  have  the 
artistic  finish  of  the  literary  epigram.  In  their 
polished  form  they  remind  us  less  of  the  popular 
maxim  of  the  man  in  the  street  than  of  the  pointed 
aphorisms  of  Pope’s  glittering  couplets.  And  as 
Pope’s  smooth  couplets  are  built,  like  glazed  tiles, 
into  the  ordered  structure  of  his  completed  poems, 
so  these  isolated  mashals  on  a  single  topic  are 
grouped  sometimes  into  what  most  resembles  the 

59  Prov.  10-22:16. 

The  synthetic  parallelism  (expressive  of  a  comparison) 
and  the  synonymous  (expressive  of  a  simple  iteration)  are 
also  represented  in  this  group. 


THE  SAGES 


175 


Baconian  essay,  or  the  sonnet.  Such  expansions 
of  the  couplet  into  something  analogous  to  the 
sonnet  we  find  in  what  Professor  Moulton  calls  a 
“Folk  song  of  good  husbandry”: 

Be  thou  diligent  to  know  the  state  of  thy  flocks, 

And  look  well  to  thy  herds: 

For  riches  are  not  forever; 

And  doth  the  crown  endure  unto  all  generations? 
The  hay  is  carried,  and  the  tender  grass  sheweth 
itself. 

And  the  herbs  of  the  mountains  are  gathered  in. 
The  lambs  are  for  thy  clothing, 

And  the  goats  are  the  price  of  the  field: 

And  there  will  be  goats’  milk  enough  for  thy  food, 
For  the  food  of  thy  household; 

And  maintenance  of  thy  maidens.60 

From  this,  and  from  still  freer  expansions  of 
the  proverb  distich,  such  as  the  elaborately  sym¬ 
bolic  description  of  old  age  in  the  last  chapter  of 
Ecclesiastes,01  we  see  that  the  mashal  was,  like 
the  Spenserian  stanza  in  English  poetry,  espe¬ 
cially  suited  to  description.  As  Professor  Genung 
says,02  “  It  is  an  instrument  of  moving  and  trench¬ 
ant  portrayal,  wherein  concrete  images  flash  and 
glitter  and  burn  themselves  into  the  mind.”  This 
descriptive  quality  the  mashal  always  retained. 
Even  when  the  sages  dealt  with  problems  which 
would  have  been  treated  by  Western  philosophers 

go  Prov.  27 :23-27.  See,  also,  Prov.  31 :10-31. 

61  Eccles.  12:1-8. 

62  Hebrew  Literature  of  Wisdom,  p.  82. 


176  OUR  MODERN  DEBT  TO  ISRAEL 


as  purely  speculative,  they  still  adhered  to  the 
method  of  picturing  concretely  the  materials  of  the 
discussion.  Even  in  the  book  of  Job,  for  example, 
which  is  a  presentation  of  the  world-old  question, 
“  Is  the  world  governed  justly?  ”,  the  method  pur¬ 
sued  by  the  author  is  wholly  descriptive.  The 
book  is  a  succession  of  splendid  descriptions.  Job 
is  first  described  in  his  prosperity ;  and  then,  after 
the  intervening  description  of  the  celestial  coun¬ 
cil,  in  his  adversity.  The  friends  argue  wholly 
by  a  series  of  graphic  portrayals  of  the  power  and 
gentleness  of  God  that  He  cannot  but  do  justly 
and  mercifully ;  and  then,  also  by  a  series  of  pic¬ 
tures  of  the  fate  of  the  wicked  and  of  the  con¬ 
trasting  prosperity  of  the  righteous,  that  all  suf¬ 
fering  is  caused  by  sin.  Similarly  the  voice  of 
God  out  of  the  whirlwind,  by  the  portrayal  of  a 
world  luminous  with  God,  in  which  the  evil  is  no 
more  mysterious  than  the  good,  closes  the  discus¬ 
sion.  Finally,  in  the  epilogue,  Job’s  restoration 
to  prosperity  is  described,  as  a  fitting  close  to  a 
book  in  which  an  abstruse  question  is  solved  solely 
by  means  of  narrative  description. 


CHAPTER  VII 


OUR  MODERN  DEBT  TO  THE  SAGES 

An  attempt  to  formulate  with  any  degree  of 
exactness  the  extent  of  our  modern  debt  to  Is¬ 
rael’s  sages  is  extremely  difficult.  Their  influ¬ 
ence,  unlike  that  of  the  priests,  has  not  left  its  im¬ 
press  upon  our  institutions ;  and,  unlike  that  of 
the  prophets,  has  not  much  affected  our  religious 
concepts,  but  must  be  traced  in  those  ideals  of 
temperance,  chastity,  industry,  and  duty  to  one’s 
fellows  which  make  up  our  current  notions  of 
what  constitutes  manly  character. 

What  the  Hebrew  ideal  of  manly  character  was 
is  clearly  shown  in  Job’s  autobiographic  character 
sketch.  The  setting  of  the  picture  adds  to  its  im¬ 
pressiveness.  The  long  and  inconclusive  debate 
has  ended.  The  three  friends  have  contributed  to 
the  discussion  their  shallow  argument  to  prove 
that  all  suffering  is  caused  by  sin.  And  Job  has 
silenced  them  by  bringing  their  argument  to  the 
test  of  life,  and  showing  that  their  contention  is 
inconsistent  with  the  patent  facts  of  life.  Then 
Job  sums  up  the  whole  case,  and  answers  the  base¬ 
less  charges  against  his  moral  character  which  the 
friends,  in  their  attempt  to  account  for  the  severity 

of  his  sufferings,  have  made.  No  picture  in  an- 

177 


178  OUR  MODERN  DEBT  TO  ISRAEL 


cient  tragedy,  not  even  that  of  Prometheus  chained 
to  the  rock,  compares  in  moral  grandeur  with  this 
of  Job  standing  on  the  ash  mound,  robbed  of  his 
wealth,  bereft  of  his  children,  deserted  by  his  wife, 
repudiated  by  his  friends,  stricken  with  a  disease 
so  loathsome  and  horrible  that  it  was  known  among 
the  Hebrews  as  44  the  first-born  of  Death,”  1  and 
cast  off,  as  it  seemed  to  him,  by  the  God  in  whom 
he  trusted ;  and  yet  maintaining  in  the  face  of 
poverty,  and  bereavement,  and  mortal  pain,  and 
bewildered  isolation,  his  unchanged  and  unalter¬ 
able  belief  in  the  essential  justice  of  his  cause.  So 
in  the  solemn  cadences  of  the  ritual  44  oath  of  clear¬ 
ing,”  Job  denies  one  after  the  other  the  lust  of  the 
eye,  the  lust  of  the  flesh,  idolatry,  oppression  of 
the  poor,  and  even  those  more  secret  sins  of  self¬ 
ishness  and  pride  that  are  invisible  to  mortal 
sight.2 

I  made  a  covenant  with  mine  eyes; 

H  ow  then  should  I  look  upon  a  maid? 

For  what  is  the  portion  of  God  from  above, 

And  the  heritage  of  the  Almighty  from  on  high? 
Is  it  not  calamity  to  the  unrighteous, 

And  disaster  to  the  workers  of  iniquity? 

1  The  form  of  leprosy  known  to  modern  pathology  as 
elephantiasis. 

2  This  picture  of  moral  integrity  should  be  placed  side  by 
side  with  the  corresponding  portrayal  in  the  last  chapter  of 
Proverbs  of  “  the  virtuous  woman,”  because  together  they 
represent  in  the  form  of  character  sketches  the  masculine 
and  feminine  ideals  of  personal  righteousness  embodied  in 
the  teachings  of  “  the  wise.” 


OUR  DEBT  TO  THE  SAGES  179 


Doth  not  he  see  my  ways, 

And  number  all  my  steps? 

If  I  have  walked  with  vanity, 

And  my  foot  hath  hasted  to  deceit; 

(Let  me  be  weighed  in  an  even  balance. 

That  God  may  know  mine  integrity;) 

If  my  step  hath  turned  out  of  the  way, 

And  mine  heart  walked  after  mine  eyes, 

And  if  any  spot  hath  cleaved  unto  mine  hands: 

Then  let  me  sow  and  let  another  eat; 

Yea,  let  the  produce  of  my  field  be  rooted  out 

If  mine  heart  have  been  enticed  unto  a  woman, 
And  I  have  laid  wait  at  my  neighbor’s  door: 
Then  let  my  wife  grind  unto  another. 

And  let  others  bow  down  upon  her. 

For  that  were  an  heinous  crime; 

Yea,  it  were  an  iniquity  to  be  punished  by  the 
judges : 

For  it  is  a  fire  that  consumeth  unto  Destruction, 
And  would  root  out  all  mine  increase. 

If  I  did  despise  the  cause  of  my  manservant, 

Or  of  my  maidservant  when  they  contended  with  me: 
What  shall  I  do  when  God  riseth  up? 

And  when  he  visiteth,  what  shall  I  answer  him? 
Did  not  he  that  made  me  in  the  womb  make  him? 
And  did  not  one  fashion  us  in  the  womb? 

If  I  have  withheld  the  poor  from  their  desire, 

Or  have  caused  the  eyes  of  the  widow  to  fail; 

Or  have  eaten  my  morsel  alone, 

And  the  fatherless  hath  not  eaten  thereof; 

(Nay,  from  my  youth  he  grew  up  with  me 
as  with  a  father 

And  I  have  been  her  guide  from  my  moth¬ 
er’s  womb;) 


180  OUR  MODERN  DEBT  TO  ISRAEL 


If  I  have  seen  any  perish  for  want  of  clothing. 
Or  that  the  needy  had  no  covering; 

If  his  loins  have  not  blessed  me, 

And  if  he  were  not  warmed  with  the  fleece  of 
my  sheep; 

If  I  have  lifted  up  my  hand  against  the  father¬ 
less, 

Because  I  saw  my  help  in  the  gate: 

Then  let  my  shoulder  fall  from  the  shoulder  blade, 
And  mine  arm  be  broken  from  the  bone. 

For  calamity  from  God  was  a  terror  to  me. 
And  by  reason  of  his  excellency  I  could  do 
nothing. 

If  I  have  made  gold  my  hope, 

And  have  said  to  the  fine  gold,  Thou  art  my 
confidence; 

If  I  rejoiced  because  my  wealth  was  great, 

And  because  mine  hand  had  gotten  much; 

If  I  beheld  the  sun  when  it  shined, 

Or  the  moon  walking  in  brightness; 

And  mine  heart  hath  been  secretly  enticed, 

And  my  mouth  hath  kissed  my  hand: 

This  also  were  an  iniquity  to  be  punished 
by  the  judges: 

For  I  should  have  lied  to  God  that  is  above. 
If  I  rejoiced  at  the  destruction  of  him  that  hated 
me, 

Or  lifted  up  myself  when  evil  found  him; 

(Yea,  I  suffered  not  my  mouth  to  sin 
By  asking  his  life  with  a  curse;) 

If  the  men  of  my  tent  said  not, 

Who  can  find  one  that  hath  not  been  satisfied 
with  his  flesh  ? 

The  stranger  did  not  lodge  in  the  street; 


OUR  DEBT  TO  THE  SAGES  181 


But  I  opened  my  doors  to  the  traveller; 

If,  like  Adam,  I  covered  my  transgressions, 

By  hiding  mine  iniquity  in  my  bosom; 

Because  I  feared  the  great  multitude. 

And  the  contempt  of  families  terrified  me, 

So  that  I  kept  silence,  and  went  not  out  of  the 
door  — 

•  •••••• 

If  my  land  cry  out  against  me. 

And  the  furrows  thereof  weep  together; 

If  I  have  eaten  the  fruit  thereof  without  money, 
Or  have  caused  the  owners  thereof  to  lose  their 
life: 

Let  thistles  grow  instead  of  wheat, 

And  cockle  instead  of  barley !  3 

To  realize  the  uniqueness  as  well  as  the  loftiness 
of  the  ideal  of  character  portrayed  in  the  forego¬ 
ing  passage,  one  needs  but  to  compare  it  with 
other  attempts  of  the  ancient  world  to  delineate 
an  ideal  of  human  character.  Of  these,  the  oldest 
is  probably  the  so-called  “  Negative  Confession  ” 
contained  in  the  Egyptian  Booh  of  the  Dead ,  the 
chief  monument  of  the  religious  literature  of  an¬ 
cient  Egypt.  The  “  Confession  ”  is  part  of  the 
older  portion  of  the  book,  and  dates  back,  it  is 
said,  to  the  Old  Empire,  or  to  the  period  between 
4500  and  8000  B.  C.  A  copy  of  it  was  usually 
deposited  in  the  tomb,  with  the  mummy ;  and  when 
the  dead  man  appeared  before  Osiris,  he  was  sup¬ 
posed  to  recite  this  confession,  in  the  two  forms, 


s  Job  31  :l-40. 


182  OUR  MODERN  DEBT  TO  ISRAEL 


as  a  justification  of  his  plea  for  an  immortal 
life. 

I  have  not  done  injury  to  men. 

I  have  not  oppressed  those  beneath  me. 

I  have  not  acted  perversely,  instead  of  straight 
forwardly. 

I  have  not  known  vanity. 

I  have  not  been  a  doer  of  mischief. 

•  •••••• 

I  have  not  done  what  the  gods  abominate. 

I  have  not  turned  the  servant  against  his  master. 
I  have  not  caused  hunger. 

I  have  not  caused  weeping. 

I  have  not  murdered. 

I  have  not  commanded  murder. 

I  have  not  caused  suffering  to  men. 

I  have  not  cut  short  the  rations  of  the  temples. 

I  have  not  diminished  the  offerings  of  the  gods. 

I  have  not  taken  the  provisions  of  the  blessed  dead. 
I  have  not  committed  fornication  nor  impurity  in 
what  was  sacred  to  the  god  of  my  city. 

I  have  not  added  to  nor  diminished  the  measures 
of  grain. 

I  have  not  diminished  the  palm  measure. 

I  have  not  falsified  the  cubit  of  land. 

I  have  not  added  to  the  weights  of  the  balance. 

I  have  not  nullified  the  plummet  of  the  scales. 

I  have  not  taken  milk  from  the  mouth  of  babes. 

I  have  not  driven  cattle  from  their  herbage. 

I  have  not  trapped  birds,  the  bones  of  the  gods. 

I  have  not  caught  fish  by  a  bait  of  fishes’  bodies. 

I  have  not  stopped  water  in  its  season. 

I  have  not  dammed  running  water. 


OUR  DEBT  TO  THE  SAGES  183 


I  have  not  quenched  fire  when  burning. 

I  have  not  disturbed  the  cycle  of  gods  when  at 
their  choice  meats. 

I  have  not  driven  off  the  cattle  of  the  sacred  estate. 
I  have  not  stopped  a  god  in  his  comings  forth. 

SECOND  CONFESSION 

I  have  not  done  injustice. 

I  have  not  robbed. 

I  have  not  coveted. 

I  have  not  stolen. 

I  have  not  slain  men. 

I  have  not  diminished  the  corn  measure. 

I  have  not  acted  crookedly. 

I  have  not  stolen  the  property  of  the  gods. 

I  have  not  spoken  falsehood. 

I  have  not  taken  food  away. 

I  have  not  been  lazy.(?) 

I  have  not  trespassed. 

I  have  not  slain  a  sacred  animal. 

I  have  not  been  niggardly  in  grain. 

I  have  not  stolen. 

I  have  not  been  a  pilferer. 

My  mouth  hath  not  run  on. 

I  have  not  been  a  talebearer  in  business  not  mine 
own. 

I  have  not  committed  adultery  with  another  man’s 
wife. 

I  have  not  been  impure. 

I  have  not  made  disturbance. 

I  have  not  transgressed. 

My  mouth  hath  not  been  hot. 

I  have  not  been  deaf  to  the  words  of  truth. 

I  have  not  made  confusion. 


184  OUR  MODERN  DEBT  TO  ISRAEL 


I  have  not  caused  weeping. 

I  am  not  given  to  unnatural  lust. 

I  have  not  borne  a  grudge. 

I  have  not  quarreled. 

I  am  not  of  aggressive  hand. 

I  am  not  of  inconstant  mind. 

I  have  not  spoiled  the  color  of  him  that  washeth 
the  god.(  ?) 

My  voice  hath  not  been  too  voluble  in  my  speech. 

I  have  not  deceived,  nor  done  ill. 

I  have  not  cursed  the  king. 

•  •••••• 

My  voice  is  not  loud. 

I  have  not  cursed  God. 

I  have  not  made  bubbles. (?) 

I  have  not  made  (unjust)  preferences. 

I  have  not  acted  the  rich  man  except  in  my  own 
things. 

I  have  not  offended  the  god  of  my  city.4 

Almost  equally  famous  is  the  Greek  ideal  of 
character  as  formulated  by  Aristotle  in  the  Nico- 
machean  Ethics.  Between  the  Greek  philosoph¬ 
ical  ideal  and  that  of  the  Hebrew  sages  the  differ¬ 
ence  is  at  once  apparent.  That  Aristotle’s  ideal 
is  a  noble  one,  there  can  be  no  question.  It  is  the 
conception  of  a  life  blissfully  absorbed  in  the  vi¬ 
sion  of  truth.  It  is  a  life  lived,  as  he  imagines 
the  lives  of  the  gods  to  be  lived,  in  contemplative 
speculation.5  Yet  lofty  and  inspiring  as  the  ideal 

4  The  translation  is  that  of  Griffith,  article  on  Egyptian 
literature  in  the  Warner  Library  of  the  World’s  Best  Litera¬ 
ture ,  pp.  5320-5322. 

5  Nicomachean  Ethics,  Bk.  X.  VIII.  1178b. 


OUR  DEBT  TO  THE  SAGES  185 


is,  it  is  described  in  such  a  way  as  to  render  its 
realization  possible  only  to  a  gifted  few,  and  un¬ 
der  exceptional  circumstances.  It  is  unattaina¬ 
ble  by  the  poor,  the  weak,  and  the  ignorant. 
“  The  liberal  man,”  he  says,  “  must  have  money 
to  do  his  liberal  actions  with,  and  the  just  man,  to 
meet  his  engagements  .  .  .  and  the  brave  man 
must  have  power,  if  he  is  to  perform  any  of  the 
actions  which  appertain  to  his  particular  virtue, 
and  the  man  of  perfected  self-mastery  must  have 
opportunity  of  temptation,  else  how  shall  he  or 
any  of  the  others  display  his  real  character?  ”  6 
Again,  in  summing  up  what  he  has  previously  in¬ 
sisted  upon,  he  says,  “  So  happiness  must  be  a 
kind  of  contemplative  speculation ;  but  since  it  is 
a  man  we  are  speaking  of,  he  will  need  likewise  ex¬ 
ternal  prosperity,  because  his  nature  is  not  by  it¬ 
self  sufficient  for  speculation,  but  there  must  be 
health  of  body,  and  nourishment,  and  tendence  of 
all  kinds.”  7 

How  different  from  this  aristocratic  ideal  is 
that  of  the  Hebrew  sage  with  his  emphasis,  not 
upon  contemplative  speculation,  but  upon  prac¬ 
tical  benevolence,  based  on  a  recognition  of  the 
brotherhood  of  man !  The  moral  ideal,  because 
of  its  very  richness  and  variety,  invariably  defies 
the  attempts  men  have  made  to'  imprison  it  in  a 
definite  formula,  or  to  portray  it  imaginatively. 
Yet,  of  all  these  attempts  of  the  ancient  world  to 
snap-shot  this  elusive  phantom,  one  at  least  — 
6  Bk.  X.  VIII.  1178a.  7  Bk.  X.  VIII.  1178b. 


186  OUR  MODERN  DEBT  TO  ISRAEL 


that  of  the  sages  —  has  survived  in  the  hearts  of 
men  as  a  vital  force.  Age  cannot  wither,  nor  cus¬ 
tom  stale  the  freshness  of  its  appeal  as  an  ideal 
to  which  even  the  poor,  the  weak,  and  the  unlet¬ 
tered  may  in  some  degree  approach. 

An  attempt  to  formulate  in  more  detail  the 
ethical  ideas  of  the  sages  results  in  our  distinguish¬ 
ing  seven  vices  which  they  seem  to  have  regarded 
as  elemental. 

There  be  six  things  which  the  Lord  hateth ; 

Yea,  seven  which  are  an  abomination  unto  him: 
Haughty  eyes,  a  lying  tongue, 

And  hands  that  shed  innocent  blood; 

An  heart  that  deviseth  wicked  imaginations, 

Feet  that  be  swift  in  running  to  mischief; 

A  false  witness  that  uttereth  lies, 

And  he  that  soweth  discord  among  brethren.8 

These  probably  suggested  St.  Paul’s  list  of  44  those 
things  which  are  not  fitting,”  characteristic  of 
those  possessing  44  a  reprobate  mind,”  who  are  de¬ 
scribed  as  44  being  filled  with  all  unrighteousness, 
wickedness,  covetousness,  maliciousness ;  full  of 
envy,  murder,  strife,  deceit,  malignity ;  whisper¬ 
ers,  backbiters,  hateful  to  God,  insolent,  haughty, 
boastful,  inventors  of  evil  things,  disobedient  to 
parents,  without  understanding,  covenant-break¬ 
ers,  without  natural  affection,  unmerciful:  ”  9  The 
latter  list,  in  turn,  was  the  basis  of  the  medieval 
category  of  the  seven  mortal  sins.10  Rabanus 

8  Prov.  6:16-19.  9  Rom.  1:29-31. 

io  The  distinction  between  mortal  and  venial  sins  origi- 


OUR  DEBT  TO  THE  SAGES  187 


Maurus,  a  German  abbot  of  the  eighth  century, 
quotes  this  passage  from  St.  Paul,  together  with 
the  similar  one  in  Galatians,11  as  authority  for 
the  Church’s  classification.  “  Pride,”  he  goes  on 
to  say,  “  is  the  mother  and  queen  of  all  sins, 
whether  mortal  or  venial  (Mater  et  regina  om¬ 
nium  vitiorum,  sive  levium  sive  principalium).”  12 
The  emphasis  upon  pride  as  the  cause  of  all  other 
sins  is  characteristic  of  all  the  teaching  of  the 
medieval  church.  This  teaching  Dante,  the  artic¬ 
ulate  voice  of  medieval  Catholicism,  reflects  in  the 
Divine  Comedy;  and  it  has  not  been  without  its 
effect  upon  Protestantism,  for  Spenser,  following 
Dante,  makes  Pride  the  leader  of  the  procession 
of  the  seven  deadly  sins.13  Such  an  emphasis 
upon  pride  as  the  cause  of  all  sin  did  not  orig¬ 
inate  with  the  church  fathers.  It  goes  back  for 
its  ultimate  source  to  the  teaching  of  Israel’s 
sages. 

The  teaching  of  the  66  wise  ”  was  not,  however, 
wholly,  nor  even  mainly,  inhibitory.  Much  of  it 
wTas  a  positive  inculcation  of  virtue.  The  seven 

nated  with  Tertullian,  who  based  it  upon  I  John  5:16,  17. 
St.  Augustine  gives  the  list  of  the  seven,  Sermo  CIV.,  See 
Patrologiae  Latinae  (Migne),  39:1946.  His  list,  which 
differs  from  that  of  some  of  the  other  fathers,  is  as  follows: 
sacrilegium,  homicidium,  adulterium,  falsum  testimonium, 
furtum,  rapina,  superbia,  invidia,  avaritia,  iracundia, 
ebrietas. 

11  Gal.  5:19-21. 

12  “  De  Vitiis  et  Virtutibus,”  Liber  Tertius.  Patrologiae 
Latinae  (Migne)  112:1338-1339. 

13  Faerie  Queene,  Bk.  I.,  Canto  IV. 


188  OUR  MODERN  DEBT  TO  ISRAEL 


virtues  they  oftenest  dwelt  upon  are  faithfulness, 
industry,  charity,  temperateness,  chastity,  up¬ 
rightness,  and  self-control  in  speech  and  act. 

The  first  of  these  is  that  quality  that  St.  Paul 
places  among  the  fruits  of  the  spirit 14  —  ttmttis , 
which  the  authorized  version  translates  44  faith,” 
but  which  the  revised  version  more  correctly  ren¬ 
ders  44  faithfulness.”  It  means  dependability, 
trustworthiness.  How  rare  a  virtue  it  is  the 
sages  fully  recognized. 

Most  men  will  proclaim  everyone  his  own  kindness; 
But  a  faithful  man  who  can  find.18 

Yet  its  value,  like  that  of  gems,  increases  in  pro¬ 
portion  to  its  rarity. 

As  the  cold  of  snow  in  the  time  of  harvest, 

So  is  a  faithful  messenger  to  them  that  send  him, 
For  he  refresheth  the  soul  of  his  masters.16 

His  reticence,  unlike  that  of  the  gossip,  can  be 
trusted : 

He  that  goeth  about  as  a  tale-bearer  revealeth  secrets; 
But  he  that  is  of  a  faithful  spirit  concealeth  the  mat¬ 
ter.17  ' 

Regarding  industry,  the  sages’  teaching  is  no 

less  positive  than  that  of  the  church  fathers.  The 

i*  It  is  worthy  of  note  that  each  one  of  the  nine  “  fruits 
of  the  spirit  ”  mentioned  Gal.  5 :22,  23,  was  previously 
praised  by  the  sages. 

15  Prov.  20:6. 

16  Prov.  25:13. 
uProv.  11:13. 


OUR  DEBT  TO  THE  SAGES  189 


insistence  of  St.  Augustine  and  St.  Benedict, 
founder  of  the  monastic  order  of  Benedictine 
monks,  upon  industry  as  an  essential  part  of 
monastic  discipline  became  proverbial,  and  fur¬ 
nished  Chaucer  with  some  of  his  most  satirically 
ironical  strictures  upon  the  recreant  clergy  of  his 
day.18  Long  before  the  time  of  St.  Augustine 
and  St.  Benedict,  however,  the  sages  had  observed 
that, 

He  becometh  poor  that  worketh  with  a  slack  hand; 
But  the  hand  of  the  diligent  maketh  rich.19 

and  that, 

The  soul  of  the  sluggard  desireth,  and  hath  nothing; 
But  the  soul  of  the  diligent  shall  be  made  fat.20 

The  rewards  of  life,  they  saw,  were  to  the  in¬ 
dustrious. 

Seest  thou  a  man  diligent  in  his  business? 

He  shall  stand  before  kings; 

He  shall  not  stand  before  mean  men.21 

The  conclusion  of  the  author  of  the  Book  of  Eccle¬ 
siastes,  reached  only  after  long  contemplation  of 
the  things  men  falsely  prize  as  the  greatest  good, — 
wealth,  pleasure,  power, —  is  that  these  are  but  a 
“  striving  after  wind  ” ;  that  the  work  in  which 
we  can  rejoice  is  the  true  reward  of  living. 

“  Wherefore  I  saw  that  there  is  nothing  better, 
than  that  a  man  should  rejoice  in  his  works; 

is  “Prologue,”  173-176  and  183-188. 

19  Prov.  10:4;  cf.  12:24. 

20  Prov.  13:4;  cf.  21:5. 

21  Prov.  22:29.  See,  also,  27 :23  ff. 


190  OUR  MODERN  DEBT  TO  ISRAEL 


for  that  is  his  portion:  for  who  shall  bring  him 
back  to  see  what  shall  be  after  him?  ”  22 

To  those  who  know  Carlyle,  and  who  appreciate 
his  influence  in  forming  the  ideals  of  our  day, 
there  is  something  very  modern  about  all  this. 
“  Blessed  is  the  man  who  has  found  his  work,” 
says  Carlyle,  “  let  him  seek  no  other  blessedness.” 
“  Two  men  he  honors,  and  no  third  —  the  toil- 
worn  craftsman  who  conquers  the  earth,”  and 
“  him  who  is  seen  toiling  for  the  spiritually  indis¬ 
pensable.”  23 

Charity  in  the  larger  sense  of  the  word,  and 
including  not  only  liberality,  but  mercy  even  to¬ 
ward  enemies,  is,  if  we  are  to  judge  by  the  em¬ 
phasis  the  sages  put  upon  it,  one  of  the  most  im¬ 
portant  of  the  seven  cardinal  virtues.  It  differs 
very  little,  if  at  all,  from  that  which  St.  Paul 
declared  to  be  the  greatest  of  the  Christian 
graces.24  Indeed  St.  Paul  quotes  the  sages’  pre¬ 
scription  for  the  treatment  of  one’s  enemies.  The 
injunction,  “  But  if  thine  enemy  hunger,  feed  him; 
if  he  thirst,  give  him  to  drink :  for  in  so  doing  thou 
shalt  heap  coals  of  fire  upon  his  head,”  25  is  a  di¬ 
rect  quotation  from  the  sayings  of  u  the  wise,”  26 
except  that  the  apostle  omits  the  concluding  state¬ 
ment,  “  And  Jehovah  will  reward  thee.”  What- 

22  Eccles.  3:22.  See,  also,  5:18-20  and  Genung,  Hebrew 
Literature  of  Wisdom,  pp.  232,  233. 

23  See  Sartor  Besartus,  Bk.  III.;  Chap.  IV. 

24  I  Cor.  13:13. 

25  Rom.  12:20. 

26  Prov.  25 :21,  22. 


OUR  DEBT  TO  THE  SAGES  191 


ever  Jesus  had  in  mind  when  he  quoted,  as  an  an¬ 
tithesis  to  his  own  teaching,  “  Ye  have  heard  that 
it  was  said,  Thou  shalt  love  thy  neighbor,  and 
hate  thine  enemy,”  27  the  authority  was  evidently 
not  the  teaching  of  “  the  wise,”  for  their  injunc¬ 
tions  are  wholly  consonant  with  his.  “  The  wise  ” 
had  said 

Be  not  a  witness  against  thy  neighbor  without  cause; 
And  deceive  not  with  thy  lips. 

Say  not,  I  will  do  so  to  him  as  he  hath  done  to  me; 
I  will  render  to  the  man  according  to  his  work.28 

The  wise  man  does  not  expect  perfection  in  other 
people,  and  is  tolerant  of  the  faults  even  of  his 
friends : 

He  that  covereth  a  transgression,  seeketh  love: 

But  he  that  harpeth  on  a  matter  separateth  chief 
friends.29 

The  wise  man  is  also  generous,  for  he  realizes  that 

There  is  that  scattereth,  and  increaseth  yet  more; 
And  there  is  that  withholdeth  more  than  is  meet, 
but  it  tendeth  only  to  want.30 

and  he  gives,  not  only  willingly,  but  graciously, 

Withhold  not  good  from  them  to  whom  it  is  due. 
When  it  is  in  the  power  of  thine  hand  to  do  it.31 

27  Matt.  5:43.  He  certainly  could  not  have  referred  to 
the  law,  for  that  contains  no  such  injunction  as  the  latter. 
See  Lev.  19:18. 

28  Prov.  24:28,  29. 

29  Prov.  17 :9. 

so  Prov.  11:24,  25;  31:20;  Eccles,  11:1,  2. 

3i  Prov.  3:27,  28. 


192  OUR  MODERN  DEBT  TO  ISRAEL 


Temperance,  it  will  be  remembered,  is  one  of 
the  “  fruits  of  the  spirit  ”  mentioned  by  St.  Paul 
in  the  passage  in  Galatians  previously  referred 
to.32  With  this  passage  in  mind,  the  church  fa¬ 
thers  made  gluttony  one  of  the  seven  deadly  sins ; 
and,  as  a  result,  the  petition  to  be  kept  “  temper¬ 
ate  in  our  meats  and  drinks  ”  has  a  prominent 
place  in  the  prayers  of  a  large  branch  of  the 
Christian  church.33  But  the  prayer-book,  the 
church  fathers,  and  the  apostle  all  have  a  prece¬ 
dent  in  the  teaching  of  “  the  wise.”  34  The  warn¬ 
ings  against  intemperance  in  drink  35  are  the  more 
striking  because  they  occur  in  a  body  of  teaching 
that  distinctly  commends  mirth,  and  whose  atti¬ 
tude  toward  the  moderate  use  of  wine  is  on  the 
whole  tolerant.36 

In  their  discussion  of  the  virtue  of  chastity  the 
sages  were  a  good  deal  more  outspoken  than  most 
modern  moralists  have  dared  to  be.  The  number 
of  passages  that  warn  us  against  the  “  strange 
woman  ”  is  so  noticeable  as  to  lead  us  to  suspect 
that  the  temptation  to  impurity  was  peculiarly 
seductive  to  this  ancient  oriental  people. 

For  she  hath  cast  down  many  wounded: 

Yea,  all  her  slain  are  a  mighty  host.37 

32  Gal.  5  08,  23. 

33  See  Book  of  Common  Prayer,  “  Forms  of  Prayer  to  be 
used  in  Families,”  No.  5. 

34  Pro v.  23:1-3. 

35  Prov.  23:31-35.  See,  also,  Prov.  20:1. 

36  See,  for  example,  Prov.  31 :6. 

37  Prov.  7 :26. 


OUR  DEBT  TO  THE  SAGES  193 


The  sages’  lack  of  reticence  in  speaking  of  this 
vice  has  been  until  recently  at  total  variance  with 
modern  ideas.  Of  late,  however,  a  change  of  atti¬ 
tude  has  been  apparent.  The  advocacy  of  the 
single  standard  of  morality  by  such  molders  of 
public  opinion  as  Dr.  Eliot ;  the  popularizing  of 
the  eugenic  ideal ;  the  formation  of  the  American 
Federation  of  Sex  Hygiene;  the  publication  of 
pamphlets  written  by  recognized  leaders  in  the 
practice  of  medicine  under  the  auspices  of  such 
an  organization  as  the  New  York  Sanitary  and 
Moral  Prophylaxis  Society ;  the  report  submitted 
at  the  International  Hygiene  and  Demography 
Congress  on  a  graded  course  in  sex  instruction ; 
and  the  work  of  the  Bureau  of  Social  Hygiene  — 
all  these  indicate  that  at  last  people  are  coming 
to  believe  that  the  methods  of  the  sages  in  dealing 
with  impurity  were  better  than  a  false  modesty 
that  tries  to  ignore  one  of  the  greatest  social  evils 
of  the  modern,  as  well  as  of  the  ancient  world. 
The  sages  did  far  more  than  merely  to  point  out 
the  prevalence  of  lust.  They  showed  that  the  way 
of  sensuality  is  the  way  of  death.  The  house  of 
the  “  strange  woman,” 

...  is  the  way  to  the  grave, 

Going  down  to  the  chambers  of  death.38 

Never  has  what  Milton  called  “  the  sage  and  seri¬ 
ous  doctrine  of  virginity  ”  39  been  more  effectively 

38  Prov.  7:27.  Cf.  Prov.  5:5. 

39  Comus,  11.  786,  787. 


194  OUR  MODERN  DEBT  TO  ISRAEL 


set  forth,  not  even  in  Comus,  the  most  beautiful 
eulogy  of  chastity  to  be  found  in  modern  litera¬ 
ture.  The  “  wise  ”  saw  the  fatal  effects  of  im¬ 
purity  both  in  the  individual  life,  and  in  the  life 
of  organized  society.  In  the  former,  it  inevitably 
“  bringeth  forth  death  99 ;  in  the  latter  it  no  less 
inevitably  produces  social  disintegration.40  These 
conclusions  of  the  sages,  our  ampler  modern  scien¬ 
tific  knowledge  has  simply  reiterated  and  re-em¬ 
phasized,  till  they  are  today  coming  to  be  recog¬ 
nized  as  axiomatic. 

By  “  uprightness,”  the  sixth  of  the  cardinal 
virtues  which  the  sages  emphasized,  they  meant 
righteousness.  “  The  high  way  of  the  upright,” 
they  said,41  “  is  to  depart  from  evil.”  In  their 
insistence  upon  righteousness  as  one  of  the  cardi¬ 
nal  virtues,  the  “  wise  ”  were  thoroughly  in  accord 
with  the  prophets.  They,  like  Micah  in  his  sum¬ 
mary  of  the  teaching  of  the  eighth  century  proph¬ 
ets,42  believed  that  righteousness,  together  with 
mercy  and  humility,  were  the  sum  total  of  God’s 
requirements.  This  righteousness,  the  sages,  like 
later  theologians,  believed  was  innate  in  our  first 
parents  ;  but  that  it  was  subsequently  lost  through 
men’s  inventive  ingenuity.  “  Behold  this  only 
have  I  found,  that  God  made  man  upright;  but 
they  have  sought  out  many  inventions.”  43  The 
attributing  of  man’s  deterioration  to  his  inventive 
ingenuity  seems  strange,  of  course ;  but  the  sages 

40  Job  31:12.  42  Micah  6:8. 

41  Prov.  16:17.  Cf.  13:6.  43  Eccles.  7 :29. 


OUR  DEBT  TO  THE  SAGES  195 


regarded  curiosity  as  a  quality  unmoral  at  best, 
and  often  positively  immoral.44 

Two  theories  regarding  the  progress  of  mankind 
we  owe  to  different  races.  One  is  that  man  was 
originally  created  perfect,  and  that  the  whole 
progress  of  what  we  call  civilization  is  simply  a 
series  of  attempts  on  the  part  of  the  human  race 
to  reinstate  itself  in  the  position  of  primitive  dig¬ 
nity  from  which,  by  reason  of  sin,  it  had  fallen. 
The  other  theory  is  that  of  progressive  develop¬ 
ment,  according  to  which  the  race  is  thought  of 
as  having  been  in  its  beginnings  feeble  and  imper¬ 
fect.  From  such  feebleness  and  stupidity,  civili¬ 
zation  at  any  given  period  simply  represents  the 
degree  of  the  race’s  emergence.  The  history  of 
civilization,  according  to  this  theory,  is  the  rec¬ 
ord  of  the  progress  of  the  race  from  brutishness 
toward  the  measure  of  the  stature  of  the  fulness 
of  human  perfection. 

Of  these  theories,  the  first  was  in  origin 
Hebraic ;  and  has  been,  until  comparatively  recent 
years,  the  universally  accepted  belief  of  Chris¬ 
tendom.  The  other  was  the  accepted  theory  of 
the  Greek  and  Roman  world,45  though  it  was 

44  It  will  be  recalled  that  the  story  of  man’s  fall,  as  told 
in  Genesis,  represents  man’s  deterioration  to  have  begun  with 
the  eating  of  the  forbidden  fruit  of  the  tree  of  knowledge. 
The  beginning  of  sin  was,  thus,  closely  connected  with  the 
beginning  of  knowledge.  The  first  step  in  civilization,  the 
adoption  of  clothing,  was  a  direct  eifect  of  the  shame  con¬ 
sequent  upon  sin.  See  Genesis,  3:6,  7. 

45  Man’s  progress  according  to  the  Greek  theory  is  de¬ 
scribed  by  .ZEschylus  in  Prometheus  Bound,  11.  450-514; 


196  OUR  MODERN  DEBT  TO  ISRAEL 


often  confused  and  contradicted  by  the  poets,  who 
delighted  to  describe  fancifully  the  glories  of  the 
44  golden  age  99  in  the  past.  Though  modern 
science  has  shown  that  the  Hebrew  philosophy 
of  history  presents  an  untenable  theory,  and  has 
proved  that  the  Greek  was  far  more  scientific,  the 
fact  remains  that  the  religious  thought  of  the 
modern  world  has  hitherto  owed  an  incalculable 
debt  to  the  Hebrew  theory  of  the  original  per¬ 
fection  of  the  race,  and  that  this  debt  is  in  no  small 
part  one  of  our  obligations  to  the  44  wise.” 

To  some  modern  students,  the  emphasis  that 
the  sages  put  upon  the  rather  colorless  and  nega¬ 
tive  virtue  of  discretion  seems  out  of  proportion 
to  its  real  importance.  To  this  ancient  oriental 
people,  however,  dignified  and  fitting  speech,  as  an 

and  later  by  Diodorus  Siculus,  a  prose  writer  of  the 
Augustan  age,  in  his  Bibliotheca,  a  history  of  the  world  in 
forty  books.  In  1:8  of  this  work  he  says:  “Men,  as  origi¬ 
nally  generated,  lived  in  a  confused  and  brutish  condition, 
preserving  existence  by  feeding  on  herbs  and  fruits  that  grew 
spontaneously.  .  .  .  Their  speech  was  quite  indistinct  and 
confused,  but  by  degrees  they  invented  articulate  speech. 
.  .  .  They  lived  without  any  of  the  comforts  and  conveni¬ 
ences  of  life,  without  clothing,  without  habitations,  without 
fire,  and  without  cooked  victuals;  and  not  knowing  to  lay 
up  store  for  future  need,  great  numbers  of  them  died  during 
the  winter  from  the  effects  of  cold  and  starvation.  By 
which  sad  experience  taught,  they  learned  to  lodge  them¬ 
selves  in  caves,  and  laid  up  stores  there.  By-and-by,  they 
discovered  fire  and  other  things  pertaining  to  a  comfortable 
existence.  The  arts  were  then  invented,  and  man  became 
in  every  respect  such  as  a  highly  gifted  animal  might  well 
be,  having  hands  and  speech  and  a  devising  mind  ever 
present  to  work  out  his  purposes.” 


OUR  DEBT  TO  THE  SAGES  197 


element  of  moral  and  intellectual  culture,  ap¬ 
pealed  to  a  degree  that  our  modern,  bustling, 
work-a-day  world  seems  little  adapted  to  appre¬ 
ciate  —  or  to  emulate.  To  the  sages,  discretion 
of  speech  seemed  a  virtue  worthy  of  the  most  ear¬ 
nest  emulation,  and  one  deserving,  therefore, 
to  occupy  an  important  place  in  their  list  of  the 
seven  virtues.  Again  and  again  they  dwell  upon 
the  power  of  discretion  to  preserve  and  dignify 
its  possessor.  In  Proverbs  we  are  told, 

Discretion  shall  preserve  thee, 

Understanding  shall  keep  thee.46 

and  again, 

There  is  that  pierceth  like  the  piercing  of  a  sword; 
But  the  tongue  of  the  wise  is  health.47 

We  are  assured  that, 

Whoso  keepeth  his  mouth  and  his  tongue 
Keepeth  his  soul  from  troubles,48 

for 

Death  and  life  are  in  the  power  of  the  tongue.49 

The  Epistle  of  James,  Jesus’  younger  brother, 
is  one  of  the  oldest,  if  not  the  oldest,  of  the  New 
Testament  books.  As  such  it  represents  the  clos¬ 
est  connecting  link  with  the  Old  Testament.  A 
brief  examination  of  the  book  reveals  its  kinship 
with  the  older  wisdom  books.  Like  them,  it  is  a 

46  Prov.  2:11.  Cf.  Prov.  19:11.  48  Prov.  21:23. 

47  Cf.  Prov.  10:20;  Prov.  15:4.  49  Prov,  18:21, 


198  OUR  MODERN  DEBT  TO  ISRAEL 


manual  of  good  sense,  addressed,  in  this  instance, 
“  to  the  twelve  tribes  which  are  of  the  Disper¬ 
sion.”  Like  the  older  wisdom  books,  the  Epistle 
of  James  is  concerned  with  the  upbuilding  of  char¬ 
acter.  It  aims  to  set  forth  the  character  of 
a  Christian  gentleman.  In  this  attempt  it,  nat¬ 
urally,  connected  the  older  wisdom  teaching  with 
the  new.  Consequently,  we  are  not  surprised  to 
find  the  author  selecting  for  especial  emphasis  the 
virtue  of  self  control  in  speech,  which  both  the 
earlier  sages  and  Jesus  after  them  50  had  so  often 
insisted  upon.  Through  the  apostolic  populari¬ 
zation  of  it  this  ancient  ideal  of  self  control  in 
speech  became  one  of  the  ideals  of  Christendom. 
But  the  fact  that  our  modern  ideals  of  reticence 
and  tactfulness  in  speech  come  to  us  so  largely 
through  the  medium  of  the  New  Testament,  ought 
not  to  blind  us  to  the  ultimate  source  of  them  in 
the  teaching  of  the  sages.51  Long  before  Jesus 
affirmed  that  by  their  words  men  shall  be  justified; 
and  by  their  words,  condemned,52  and  still  longer 
before  St.  James  had  noted  that  out  of  the  same 
mouth  cometh  forth  blessing  and  cursing,53  the 
sages  had  declared, 

Death  and  life  are  in  the  power  of  the  tongue.04 

50  Matt.  5:22,  and  Matt.  12:36. 

si  See  Prov.  4:24;  10:10,  19;  15:4;  17:20;  18:6,  7,  13; 
Eccles.  10:12,  13. 

52  Matt.  12:37. 

53  James  3:10. 

b 4  Prov.  18:21. 


OUR  DEBT  TO  THE  SAGES  199 


St.  James’  characterization  of  the  new  wisdom  as 
“  first  pure,  then  peaceable,  gentle,  easy  to  be  in- 
treated,  full  of  mercy  and  good  fruits,  without 
variance,  without  hypocrisy  ” 55  is  equally  ap¬ 
plicable  to  the  old,  for  that,  also,  by  its  emphasis 
upon  faithfulness,  industry,  charity,  temperate¬ 
ness,  chastity,  uprightness,  the  control  of  the 
tongue,  had  proved  itself  a  “  wisdom  from  above.” 


ss  James  3:17. 


CHAPTER  VIII 


THE  MESSAGE  OF  ISRAEL  TO  THE 
MODERN  WORLD 

The  crowning  glory  of  the  nineteenth  century 
was  the  rediscovery  of  the  Old  Testament. 
Through  this  rediscovery,  the  message  of  Israel 
to  the  world  has  been  reiterated,  and  is  gradually 
becoming  better  known.  We  find  it  to  be  the  an¬ 
swer  to  three  questions  —  Who  is  God  ?  What  is 
man?  How  are  men  to  live  wisely  here  on  the 
earth?  The  first  question  was  answered  by  the 
prophets.  44  The  Lord  our  God  is  one  Lord,” 
they  said,1  and  his  attributes  are  justice 2  and 
mercy.3  The  second  question  was  answered  by 
the  priests,  who  said,  44  God  created  man  in  his 
own  image.”  4  The  third  question  was  answered 
by  the  prophets,  who  said  man’s  highest  good  was 
to  be  attained  by  becoming  God-like  —  by  doing 
justly,  loving  mercy,  and  by  walking  humbly  with 
God.5  It  was  answered,  also,  by  the  priests,  who 
identified  man’s  duty  with  the  keeping  of  the  law, 

1  Deut.  6 :4.  Deuteronomy,  it  will  be  remembered,  was 
written,  either  by  a  prophet,  or  under  prophetic  influence. 

2  Amos. 

3  Hosea. 

4  Gen.  1:27. 

6  Mic.  6:8. 


200 


■  V 


THE  MESSAGE  OF  ISRAEL  201 

summarized  under  the  two  precepts  enjoining  love 
to  God  and  man.6  Again,  this  third  question  was 
answered  by  the  sages,  who  affirmed  that  the  one 
great  concern  of  every  man  is  to  be  right  in  heart 
and  life,  for  righteousness,  they  contended,  is  sal¬ 
vation.7 

The  message  of  Israel  is,  therefore,  a  three-fold 
one,  the  product  of  the  inspired  thinking  of  three 
classes  of  leaders  —  the  prophets,  the  priests,  and 
the  sages.  These  three  classes  of  leaders  were 
unlike  in  their  methods,  and  divergent  in  their 
aims.  The  prophets  were  the  idealists  of  the  race. 
Impatient  of  ritual,  they  looked  upon  the  priests 
with  the  contempt  which  the  radical  always  feels 
for  the  conservative,  regarding  them  as  reaction¬ 
aries  interested  only  in  the  past.  Toward  the  fu¬ 
ture,  the  prophets  resolutely  turned  their  faces, 
looking  forward  to  a  coming  golden  age,  when 
righteousness  and  peace  shall  dwell  in  all  the 
earth.  In  contrast  to  the  prophets,  the  priests 
were  the  ritualists  of  Israel.  To  them  the  law  was 
an  object  of  reverent  regard,  because  the  law  was, 
they  believed,  the  best  means  of  educating  the 
conscience  of  Israel,  and  of  attaining  social  jus¬ 
tice  on  the  earth.  To  them  the  prophet  with  his 
incorrigible  idealism,  seemed  as  sounding  brass, 
or  a  tinkling  cymbal;  for  to  them  the  prophet, 

6  Deut.  10:12  and  Lev.  19:17,  18. 

7  See  Abbott,  Life  and  Literature  of  the  Ancient  Hebrews, 
pp.  377-387,  and  Gladden,  Who  Wrote  the  Bible,  pp.  360- 
362. 


202  OUR  MODERN  DEBT  TO  ISRAEL 


with  his  scant  respect  for  ecclesiastical  ceremony, 
appeared  to  have  repudiated  the  only  means  by 
which  the  nation  could  secure  the  condition  of 
holiness  to  which  both  the  prophet  and  the  priest 
desired  to  point  the  way.  To  the  sage,  both 
prophet  and  priest  seemed  to  have  been  misled 
into  blind  alleys  leading  nowhither.  To  the  sage, 
the  practical  moralist,  the  only  vital  question  was 
how  to  live  sanely  and  reverently  in  the  present ; 
the  only  good  worth  seeking,  the  development  of 
the  character  of  the  individual.  The  individual 
and  not  the  nation  was  to  the  sage  the  matter  of 
chief  concern.  So  they  seem  dissident  —  these 
voices  of  prophet,  priest,  and  sage;  but  the  dissi- 
dence  is  only  apparent.  In  reality  theirs  were  not 
discordant  voices ;  for  together  they  constitute  a 
kind  of  choral  harmony,  which  is  the  message  of 
Israel. 

To  Israel  the  debt  of  our  modern  world  is  sim¬ 
ply  beyond  compute.  Our  obligation  institution¬ 
ally  we  may,  indeed,  calculate  with  some  degree  of 
exactitude;  but  we  cannot  demonstrate  accurately 
the  extent  to-  which  our  modern  life  is  influenced 
by  Israel’s  ideals.  Our  ideals  of  personal  char¬ 
acter  are  very  largely  those  of  the  sages ;  our 
visions  of  the  kingdom  of  God  on  earth  are  those 
of  the  prophets;  our  hopes  of  social  justice  are 
those  of  the  prophets  and  the  priests.  Whatever 
there  is  in  modern  civilization  that  is  making  for 
human  fraternity;  whatever  religious  aspiration 
is  calling  men  to  a  higher  sense  of  duty ;  wherever 


THE  MESSAGE  OF  ISRAEL 


203 


men  and  women  are  toiling  to  prove  that  humanity 
is  a  great  brotherhood ;  there  we  find  men  living, 
acting,  thinking,  under  the  influence  of  these  lead¬ 
ers  of  Hebrew  thought. 

Simultaneously  with  a  fuller  and  more  sympa¬ 
thetic  knowledge  of  what  these  men  stood  for  — 
and,  perhaps,  in  part  because  of  it  —  has  come 
about  a  remarkable  change  of  emphasis.  That 
the  ideals  of  Christendom  are  rapidly  changing  is 
an  indisputable  fact.  That  the  new  ideals  are  so¬ 
cial,  rather  than  individual,  is  equally  beyond  ques¬ 
tion.8  Whereas  formerly  the  salvation  of  the  in¬ 
dividual  soul  for  the  future  was  the  chief  concern, 
to-day  the  salvation  of  society  for  the  present  is 
regarded  as  of  the  highest  importance;  and  men 
are  content  to  leave  the  salvation  of  their  individ¬ 
ual  souls  to  the  merciful  decision  of  44  the  Judge 
of  all  the  earth,”  believing  that  He  cannot  but 
44  do  right.” 

With  such  a  change  of  emphasis,  has  come  a 
corresponding  change  of  watchwords.  Instead  of 
44  world-renunciation,”  we  hear  much  of  44  world- 
consecration  ”  as  the  phrase  best  calculated  to  ex¬ 
press  the  ideals  of  an  age  that  is  coming  to  believe, 
with  the  Second-Isaiah,  that  God’s  highest  call  is 
the  call  to  service.  The  ascetic  ideal  no  longer 
commands  allegiance.  Monastic  vows,  the  hair 
shirt,  and  flagellation  no  longer  serve  as  expres¬ 
sions  of  the  piety  of  a  generation  that  believes 

s  See  J.  H.  Holmes,  The  Revolutionary  Function  of  the 
Modern  Church,  Chap.  I. 


204  OUR  MODERN  DEBT  TO  ISRAEL 


social  justice  in  the  present  to  be  a  more  desira¬ 
ble,  as  well  as  a  more  attainable  goal  to  strive  for 
than  future  sainthood.  In  other  words,  the  goal 
toward  which  modern  Christendom  is  striving  is 
not  the  saved  individual,  not  even  the  church,  but 
a  saved  world. 

Such  an  ideal  finds  expression  in  the  longing 
of  the  working  class  for  industrial  democracy. 
In  a  paper  read  at  the  Baptist  World  Congress 
at  Philadelphia  in  the  autumn  of  1912  Professor 
Walter  Rauschenbusch  of  Rochester  Theolog¬ 
ical  Seminary  summed  up  the  situation  thus : 
“  The  great  industrial  working  class,  swiftly  grow¬ 
ing  in  numbers,  strong  in  education  and  intelli¬ 
gence,  with  the  breath  of  democracy  and  self- 
respect  in  its  nostrils,  knit  together  by  organi¬ 
zation,  is  confronting  its  older  brother,  the 
business  class,  with  a  demand  for  a  fairer  share 
in  the  proceeds  of  the  common  toil,  in  the  manage¬ 
ment  of  the  common  affairs,  and  in  the  enjoyment 
of  the  light  and  vastness  of  modern  knowledge  and 
culture.  .  .  .  Our  age  has  outgrown  our  older 
order.  It  is  aching  in  its  old  organization  and 
straining  for  a  new.  .  .  .  Several  centuries  ago, 
society  began  to  pass  from  the  partiarchal,  feudal, 
despotic  age  into  the  new  age  of  political  democ¬ 
racy  and  economic  capitalism.  It  wTas  a  crisis 
accomplished  with  untold  suffering  and  immense 
achievements  of  good.  To-day  we  are  once  more 
passing  from  capitalism  to  collectivism,  from  an 
economic  order  based  on  special  privilege  and  in- 


THE  MESSAGE  OF  ISRAEL  205 


dustrial  autocracy  to  one  based  on  equality  of  op¬ 
portunity  and  industrial  democracy.  It  will  come 
with  travail  and  bloody  sweat,  but  once  more  it 
is  the  tread  of  destiny  and  it  brings  rich  promise.” 
Such  an  utterance  as  this  of  Professor  Rausch- 
enbusch  is  representative  of  the  social  temper  of 
our  modern  age  —  an  age  that  is  coming  to  believe 
in  a  religion  that  does  not  merely  look  forward, 
but  that  looks  around  and  looks  up,  that  no  longer 
distinguishes  between  this  world  as  the  domain  of 
Satan,  and  the  next  as  the  realm  of  God,  but  that 
believes  in  the  uniting  of  the  present  and  the  fu¬ 
ture  as  component  parts  of  the  kingdom  of  God. 

This  attitude  of  mind  is  a  return  to  the  social 
outlook  of  the  prophets,  priests,  and  sages  of  Is¬ 
rael.  Renan  called  the  Jews  the  first  socialists 
of  the  world,  and  the  designation  is  entirely  just. 
Every  social  movement  of  our  day  —  every  move¬ 
ment  of  which  the  moving  force  is  the  demand  for 
social  justice  —  is  a  return  to  the  old  plea  of  Isra¬ 
el’s  inspired  leaders.  “  Let  judgment  (justice) 
roll  down  as  waters,  and  righteousness  as  a  mighty 
stream !  ”  cried  Amos  in  the  eighth  century  B.  C. ;  9 
and  that  demand  finds  a  response  in  the  heart  of 
every  worker  for  the  betterment  of  human  society 
—  in  the  heart  of  the  worker  in  the  slums,  of 
those  who,  as  members  of  the  consumers’  league, 
are  trying  to  do  away  with  the  sweatshop,  and  to 
prevent  the  employment  of  children  in  factories, 
and  of  those  who  are  trying  to  secure  for  the 
9  Amos  5  &4>. 


206  OUR  MODERN  DEBT  TO  ISRAEL 


great  inarticulate  army  of  the  employed  a  living 
wage  —  in  short  of  all  those  who  realize  that  no 
man  liveth  to  himself,  and  that  no  man  dieth  to 
himself,  and  who-  believe  that  the  individual  at¬ 
tains  the  loftiest  reach  of  human  character  wThen 
his  life  becomes  a  telling  force  in  the  upward  striv¬ 
ing  of  the  society  to  which  he  belongs. 

Little  by  little  the  ideals  of  ancient  Israel  are 
becoming  the  ideals  of  the  modern  wrorld.  Grad¬ 
ually  social  justice  and  personal  righteousness  are 
becoming,  to  a  degree  hitherto  unknown,  the  ideals 
of  common  men.  When  they  do  become,  as 
they  seem  destined  to,  the  dominant  spiritual  pos¬ 
session  of  our  race,  their  transforming  power  will 
inevitably  bring  about  a  realization  more  or  less 
complete  of  some  of  the  hopes  of  ancient  Israel. 
That  such  a  transformation  will  actually  occur, 
and  that  comparatively  soon,  is  not  a  mere  fancy. 
Already  the  signs  of  a  great  moral  awakening  are 
apparent.  Within  the  last  decade,  America,  at 
least,  has  been  swept,  as  the  forests  of  the  North 
are  annually  swept  with  autumnal  fires,  by  the 
flame  of  a  new  zeal  for  righteousness.  Never  be¬ 
fore  in  our  national  history  has  there  been  such  a 
longing  for  personal,  municipal,  and  national 
righteousness  as  that  which  has  burned  in  men’s 
hearts  in  recent  years ;  and  yet  we  see  only  the 
beginning  of  a  movement  that  will  have  as  its  cul¬ 
mination  at  least  a  partial  realization  of  the  hope 
of  Israel  for  a  time  when  “  righteousness  shall 
cover  the  earth,  as  the  waters  cover  the  sea.”  An- 


THE  MESSAGE  OF  ISRAEL  207 


other  result  of  this  movement  will  be  an  ultimate 
realization  of  the  prophetic  hope  of  universal 
peace.  That  such  a  consummation  is  not  to  be 
deferred  to  some  far-off  millennial  time,  but  that 
it  is  nearer  than  we  have  been  accustomed  to  think, 
there  are  significant  indications.  The  growing 
revolt  against  the  brutality  and  waste  of  war  — 
a  revolt  that  finds  expression  in  the  formation  of 
such  societies  as  that  of  International  Concilia¬ 
tion,  is,  as  Carlyle  used  to  say,  “  significant  of 
much.”  It  signifies  that  the  time  is  not  far  dis¬ 
tant  when  44  they  shall  beat  their  swords  into  plow 
shares,  and  their  spears  into  pruning  hooks,  and 
when  the  nations  shall  not  learn  war  any  more.” 

Finally,  this  movement  will  result  in  a  partial 
realization  of  the  dreams  of  Israel’s  leaders  of 
the  establishment  of  a  better  social  order.  The 
amelioration  of  present  evils  will  probably  not  be 
brought  about  by  the  organization  of  new  co¬ 
operative  commonwealths.  Idealists  who  have  at¬ 
tempted  through  the  planning  of  such  utopias  to 
show  what  can  be  done  with  modern  means  of 
production,  have  invariably  been  disillusioned,  and 
have  accomplished  nothing  lasting.  Nor  will  the 
future  improvement  of  the  social  order  come 
through  compulsory  co-operation  in  the  form  of 
state  socialism.  Though  it  is  possible  for  a  peo¬ 
ple,  by  electing  administrative  officers  with  power 
to  compel  obedience,  to  force  individuals  to  do 
things  that  they  would  not  voluntarily  do,  it  is 
unlikely  that  our  social  and  economic  problems 


208  OUR  MODERN  DEBT  TO  ISRAEL 


will  ever  be  solved  in  this  way.  Such  a  method 
of  self-coercion,  involving,  as  it  does,  a  kind  of 
self-imposed  servitude  is  destined  to  become  more 
and  more  repellent  to  people  who  believe  in  the 
spirit  of  modern  democratic  freedom.  An  im¬ 
provement  of  the  social  order  will  come  rather 
through  the  popularization  of  the  ideals  of  Israel, 
till  the  principles  of  respect  for  life,  and  of  a 
sense  of  the  brotherhood  of  man,  of  which  the 
work  of  prophet,  priest,  and  sage  was  the  expres¬ 
sion,  become  the  ruling  motives  in  the  lives  of  com¬ 
mon  men.  Then,  and  not  till  then,  shall  we  have 
a  long  deferred  realization  of  the  ancient  hope  of 
Israel  of  a  “  holy  ”  people. 

It  is  an  attainable  ideal.  The  exuberance  of 
the  oriental  imagery,  with  which  the  Hebrew  poets 
decked  their  thought,  should  not  blind  us  to 
fact  that  they  did  not  look,  any  more  than  sens¬ 
ible  men  do  today,  for  the  total  disappearance 
from  the  world  of  poverty,  disease,  and  sin.  The 
poor  we  shall  have  always  with  us,  as  a  result 
of  individual  sloth  and  improvidence.  The  most 
optimistic  of  modern  scientists  do  not  predict  the 
elimination  of  more  than  ninety  per  cent  of  exist¬ 
ing  disease.  And  few  social  reformers  have  much 
faith  in  Herbert  Spencer’s  prediction  that  the 
time  will  come  when  the  voice  of  conscience  will 
no  longer  speak  in  men’s  hearts,  because  the  prac¬ 
tice  of  virtue  will  become  automatic.10  They 

10  Cited  by  J.  H.  Holmes,  Revolutionary  Function  of  the 


THE  MESSAGE  OF  ISRAEL  209 


would  be  more  inclined  to  believe  with  the  Hebrew 
prophet 11  that  the  voice  of  conscience  will,  in 
the  future  golden  age,  be  more  audible  and  more 
effective.  Sin,  there  will  be,  so  long  as  human 
nature  remains  what  it  is ;  but,  though  poverty, 
disease,  and  sin  will  not  wholly  disappear,  they 
will  at  least  be  less  clamorous  problems  than  they 
are  today.  Their  measurable  solution  can  be 
secured  only  by  one  method  —  the  religious 
method  advocated  by  Israel’s  leaders  —  that  of 
social  righteousness. 

Modern  Church ,  p.  255.  See  the  concluding  chapter  of  this 
book. 

n  Isaiah  30 :21. 


APPENDIX 


APPENDIX 


A  SELECTED  LIST  OF  BOOKS  DEALING 
WITH  THE  SUBJECT  TREATED,  AND 
REFERRED  TO  IN  THE  FOREGOING 

PAGES 

Abbott,  Lyman:  Life  and  Literature  of  the  Ancient 
Hebrews.  Boston,  1901. 

Adam,  James:  The  Vitality  of  Platonism.  Cam¬ 
bridge,  1911. 

Addis,  W.  E.:  Hebrew  Religion.  N.  Y.,  1906. 

Adeney,  W.  F.:  Song  of  Solomon  and  Lamentations. 
N.  Y.,  1895. 

Barker,  Ernest:  Political  Thought  of  Plato  and 
Aristotle.  N.  Y.,  1906. 

Barton,  G.  A.:  Ecclesiastes.  (International  Critical 
Commentary.)  N.  Y.,  1908. 

Batten,  L.  W. :  Hebrew  Prophet.  N.  Y.,  1905. 

Beda,  Venerabilis.  Ecclesiastical  History  of  Eng¬ 
land.  London,  1894. 

Cambridge  Companion  to  the  Bible.  Cambridge, 

1899. 

Cambridge  History  of  English  Literature.  N.  Y.  & 
London,  1910. 

Catholic  Encyclopaedia.  N.  Y.,  1907-1912. 

Chamberlin,  Georgia  L. :  Hebrew  Prophets.  Chi¬ 
cago,  1911. 


213 


214 


APPENDIX 


Cheyne,  T.  K. :  Hosea.  London,  1899. 

Jewish  Religious  Life  after  the  Exile.  London, 
1901. 

Job  and  Solomon,  or  The  Wisdom  of  the  Old  Testa¬ 
ment.  N.  Y.,  1887. 

Micah.  London,  1902. 

Chotzner,  J.:  Hebrew  Humour  and  other  Essays. 
London,  1905. 

Conway,  Moncure  D.:  Solomon  and  Solomonic  Litera¬ 
ture.  Chicago,  1899. 

Cornill,  C.  H. :  Prophets  of  Israel.  Chicago,  1901. 

Davidson,  A.  B.:  Ezekiel.  London,  1906. 

Old  Testament  Prophecy.  Edinburgh,  1903. 

Theology  of  the  Old  Testament.  Edinburgh,  1904. 

Job.  London,  1899. 

Davison,  W.  T. :  Wisdom  Literature  of  the  Old  Testa¬ 
ment.  London. 

Day,  Edward:  Social  Life  of  the  Hebrews.  N.  Y., 
1901. 

Dictionary  of  the  Bible:  (James  Hastings,  Ed.). 
N.  Y.,  1902-1907. 

Driver,  S.  R.:  Daniel.  London,  1905. 

Introduction  to  the  Literature  of  the  Old  Testa¬ 
ment.  N.  Y.,  1900. 

Edersheim,  Alfred:  Life  and  Times  of  Jesus  the 
Messiah.  8th  Ed.  N.  Y.,  1905. 

Sketches  of  Jewish  Social  Life  in  the  Days  of 
Christ.  London. 

Encyclopaedia  Biblica  (T.  K.  Cheyne,  Ed.).  Lon¬ 
don,  1902. 

Encyclopaedia  of  Religious  Ethics  (James  Hastings, 
Ed.).  N.  Y.,  1908—. 


APPENDIX 


£15 


Fairweather,  W. :  Pre-Exilic  Prophets.  London. 
Farrar,  F.  W. :  The  Minor  Prophets.  N.  Y. 

Fisher,  George  P.:  The  Beginnings  of  Christianity. 
N.  Y.,  1887. 

History  of  Christian  Doctrine.  N.  Y.,  1904. 
Fiske,  A.  K.:  The  Great  Epic  of  Israel.  N.  Y.,  1911. 
Fowler,  H.  T.:  History  of  the  Literature  of  Ancient 
Israel  from  the  Earliest  Times  to  135  B.  C. 
Boston,  1912. 

Gardiner,  J.  H. :  The  Bible  as  English  Literature. 
N.  Y.,  1907. 

Garnett,  Richard  (editor) :  Republic  of  Plato  in  Ten 
Books,  translated  from  the  Greek  by  H.  Spens, 
D.  D.  N.  Y. 

Genung,  J.  F. :  The  Epic  of  the  Inner  Life.  Bos¬ 
ton,  1891. 

Hebrew  Literature  of  Wisdom.  Boston,  1906. 
Gifford,  E.  H.:  Voices  of  the  Prophets.  Edinburgh, 
1874. 

Gigot,  E.  E.:  General  Introduction  to  the  Study  of 
the  Scriptures.  London,  1900. 

Gladden,  Washington:  The  Prophets  as  Statesmen 
and  Preachers.  N.  Y.,  1904. 

Seven  Puzzling  Bible  Books.  Boston,  1897- 
Green,  J.  R.:  Short  History  of  the  English  People. 
N.  Y.,  1887. 

Harper,  J.  W. :  Post-Exilic  Prophets.  London. 
Harper,  W.  R.:  Amos  and  Hosea  (International  Crit¬ 
ical  Commentary).  N.  Y.,  1905. 

Constructive  Studies  in  the  Prophetic  Element  in 
the  Old  Testament.  Chicago,  1905. 


216 


APPENDIX 


Priestly  Element  in  the  Old  Testament.  Chicago, 

1905. 

Holmes,  J.  H. :  Revolutionary  Function  of  the  Mod¬ 
ern  Church.  N.  Y.,  1912. 

Horton,  R.  F.:  Book  of  Proverbs  (Expositor’s  Bible 
Series).  N.  Y.,  1902. 

Jewish  Encyclopaedia  (Cyrus  Adler,  Ed.).  Phila¬ 
delphia,  1901. 

Josephus,  Flavius:  Works.  London,  1737. 

Keeble,  Samuel  E.:  Social  Teaching  of  the  Bible. 
N.  Y.,  1909. 

Kent,  C.  F. :  Origin  and  Permanent  Value  of  the  Old 
Testament.  N.  Y.,  1906. 

Kirkpatrick,  A.  F. :  Doctrine  of  the  Prophets.  N.  Y., 

1906. 

Leage,  R.:  Roman  Private  Law.  London,  1906. 
Lowth,  Robert.:  De  Sacra  Poesi  Hebraeorum  Praelec- 
tiones  Academicae.  London,  1753. 

Maine,  Henry  J.:  Ancient  Law.  London,  1906. 
Marti,  Karl:  Religion  of  the  Old  Testament. 
N.  Y.,  1907. 

McCurdy,  J.  F.:  History,  Prophecy  and  the  Monu¬ 
ments.  New  York,  1898. 

Milman,  H.  H.:  History  of  the  Jews,  two  vols.  Lon¬ 
don,  1829. 

Montefiore,  C.  G. :  Hibbert  Lectures.  1892.  Lon¬ 
don,  1897. 

Moore,  G.  F.:  Literature  of  the  Old  Testament. 
New  York,  1913. 


APPENDIX 


217 


Moulton,  R.  G. :  Literary  Study  of  the  Bible.  Bos¬ 
ton,  1908. 

Modern  Reader’s  Bible.  N.  Y.,  1907. 

Short  Introduction  to  the  Literature  of  the  Old 
Testament.  Boston,  1901. 

Nettleship,  Rich.  Lewis:  Lectures  on  the  Republic  of 
Plato.  London,  1901. 

Orelli,  C.  von:  Old  Testament  Prophecy.  Edin¬ 
burgh,  1885. 

Pater,  Walter:  Plato  and  Platonism.  London,  1910. 

Perowne,  T.  T.:  Proverbs  (Cambridge  Bible  Series). 
London,  1899. 

Petavel,  J.  W. :  The  Coming  Triumph  of  Christian 
Civilization.  London,  1911. 

Plumptre,  E.  H.:  Ecclesiastes  (Cambridge  Bible  Se¬ 
ries).  London,  1898. 

Pohlman,  Robert:  Geschichte  des  Antiken  Kommun- 
ismus  und  Sozialismus.  Munich,  1901. 

Pressense,  Edmond:  Early  Years  of  Christianity. 
N.  Y.,  1870. 

Rauschenbusch,  Walter:  Christianity  and  the  Social 
Crisis.  N.  Y.,  1908. 

Renan,  Ernest:  Book  of  Job.  London,  1889. 

Robertson,  James:  Early  Religion  of  Israel  (Baird 
Lectures,  1889).  Edinburgh,  1892. 

Sanders,  F.  K.:  Messages  of  the  Earlier  Prophets. 

Kent,  C.  F.:  N.  Y.,  1907. 

Messages  of  Israel’s  Lawgivers.  N.  Y.,  1907. 

Historical  and  Critical  Contributions  to  Biblical 
Science.  N.  Y.,  1902. 


218 


APPENDIX 


SchafF,  Philip:  History  of  the  Apostolic  Church. 
N.  Y.,  1867. 

Schaff-Herzog:  Encyclopaedia  of  Religious  Knowl¬ 
edge.  N.  Y.,  1908-1912. 

Schlaraffia  Politica.  Leipzig,  1832. 

Schlechter,  S.:  Studies  in  Judaism.  London,  1896. 

Sime,  James:  Samuel  and  the  Schools  of  the  Proph¬ 
ets.  London. 

Skinner,  J.:  Isaiah  I-XXXIX  (Cambridge  Bible  Se¬ 
ries).  London,  1909. 

Isaiah  XL-LXVI  (Cambridge  Bible  Series).  Lon¬ 
don,  1910. 

Smith,  G.  A.:  Book  of  the  Twelve  Prophets  (Ex¬ 
positor’s  Bible  Series).  N.  Y.,  1906. 

Modern  Criticism  and  the  Preaching  of  the  Old 
Testament.  N.  Y.,  1902. 

Smith,  J.  M. :  Micah,  Zephaniah,  Nahum,  Habak- 

Ward,  W.  H.:  kuk,  Obadiah  &  Joel  (Interna- 

Brewer,  J.  A.:  tional  Critical  Commentary). 

N.  Y.,  1911. 

Smith,  S.  G. :  Religion  in  the  Making.  N.  Y.,  1910. 

Smith,  W.  R.:  Prophets  of  Israel.  London,  1902. 

Religion  of  the  Semites.  London,  1901. 

Spencer,  F.  E.:  A  Short  Introduction  to  the  Old 
Testament.  London,  1912. 

Todd,  J.  C. :  Politics  and  Religion  in  Ancient  Israel. 
N.  Y.,  1904. 

Toy,  Crawford  H.:  Judaism  and  Christianity.  Bos¬ 
ton,  1892. 

Proverbs  (International  Critical  Commentary). 
N.  Y.,  1899. 

Trumbull,  H.  C.:  The  Blood  Covenant.  Philadel¬ 
phia,  1893.  (Ed.  2.) 


APPENDIX 


219 

Uhlhorn,  J.  G.  W„:  Conflict  of  Christianity  with 
Heathenism.  N.  Y.,  1906. 

Voyages  Imaginaires,  Songes,  Visions,  et  Romans 
Cabalistiques.  37  Vols.  Paris,  1727. 


Wines,  E.  C.:  Commentaries  on  the  Laws  of  the  An¬ 
cient  Hebrews.  Philadelphia,  1853. 


y 


